1- Introduce your environmental issue and your purpose of analysis.docx

1- Introduce your environmental issue and your purpose of
analysis of the impacts the issue has created and what is being
done to help this issue (solutions).
2- Develop a background paragraph of the issue - the history of
its development, its current situation, and its size and scope.
3- Develop a paragraph for each impact this environmental issue
has on the world, explaining the impact and providing evidence
of this impact from sources. (3 parghs)
4- Develop an analysis paragraph for each solution that is being
used or developed – explaining the solution clearly, and
discussing how this will impact the problem, discussing the
impact and limitations of the solution.
5- Develop a clear conclusion summarizing your analysis
process and insights gleaned from your analysis.
Reporting on long-term value creation by Canadian companies:
A
longitudinal assessment
Petra F.A. Dilling a, *, Peter Harris b
a School of Management, New York Institute of Technology,
701 W Georgia St., Vancouver, BC V7Y 1K8, Canada
b School of Management, New York Institute of Technology,
26West 61st Street, New York, NY, NY 10023, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 30 August 2017
Received in revised form
21 January 2018
Accepted 27 March 2018

Available online 27 April 2018
Keywords:
Long-term value creation
Integrated reporting
Corporate social responsibility (CSR)
Canadian extractive sector
Sustainability
Stakeholders
a b s t r a c t
In the wake of the global financial crisis, a new wave of
stakeholder demands has developed calling on
companies to shift focus towards long-term value creation and
moving away from a short-term earnings
emphasis. Aligned with these demands, urgent calls for more
transparency and improved reporting on
both financial as well as non-financial reports have been made.
The objective of this study was to analyze
longitudinal disclosure quality and quantity trends in reporting
on long-term value creation of 19
publicly traded Canadian energy and mining companies. Content
analysis was conducted in order to
assess disclosure on long-term value creation in annual
financial and sustainability reports. The empirical
results show that the companies experienced a substantial
increase in the reporting disclosure quality
and quantity. This was true for both disclosure in the annual
financial reports as well as in the sus-
tainability reports. These results supported the hypotheses that
Canadian public energy and mining
companies had increased their quantity and quality of long-term
value creation disclosure in 2014 as
compared to 2012. Even though increases in disclosure quality
could be observed (especially in the areas

of governance, responsible work practices, outside relationships
and risk management), overall disclo-
sure quality (especially in areas such as connectivity between
financials and sustainability sections,
materiality analysis, projects with high climate risk exposure,
cost of energy, responsible work practices,
incentives and remuneration) were still at a low level.
Therefore, recommendations were developed to
introduce globally accepted reporting standards and an external
assurance framework in order to restore
and sustain stakeholder confidence and trust. In the short-term,
a collaborative approach of reporting
framework development was proposed while in the long run,
mandatory implementation of global
standards and assurance is urgently recommended. This early
mover study contributes to the existing
literature by providing a first of its kind longitudinal analysis of
quality and quantity of long-term value
creation reporting for publicly listed Canadian companies in the
mining and energy industry sector.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
For many stakeholders, the 2008 global financial crisis marked
a
profound attitude change regarding the short-term orientation of
companies. A new trend towards what has been coined long-
terminism and with it reporting on long-term value creation
have
been established and their effects have been expanding ever
since.
In order to analyze non-financial reporting levels, it was
important
to understand the different types of non-mandatory global

reporting and the various players involved as well as to
understand
reporting practices in the extractive industry.
1.1. Sustainability reporting
By preparing and publishing a sustainability report, a company
discloses how it has been performing at a social, environmental
and
economic level. “Sustainability reporting” is often synonymous
with corporate social responsibility (CSR) or other terms that
pro-
vide details on the environmental, economic, and social aspects
of
an organization's performance during a fiscal year. Currently,
publishing sustainability reports is only a requirement in a few
countries in the world (Dilling, 2016).
A number of organizations have developed guidelines for
measuring and reporting CSR such as the United Nations Global
Compact (UNGC) and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational
En-
terprises (Wilburn and Wilburn, 2016). Additionally, there are
other* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P.F.A. Dilling),
[email protected] (P. Harris).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Cleaner Production
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.286
0959-6526/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Journal of Cleaner Production 191 (2018) 350e360
mailto:[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.jclepro.201
8.03.286&domain=pdf
www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09596526
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro
guidelines specific to industries or topics like the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) 26000, CDP (formerly
Car-
bon Disclosure Project), Principles for Responsible Investment
(PRI)
Framework, Greenhous Gas Protocol (GHG), Protocol Corporate
Standard, Climate Change Reporting Framework, International
La-
bour Organization (ILO), the Tripartite declaration of principles
concentrating multinational enterprises and social policy, and
the
Core Labour Standards (CLS). Other initiatives or forums
include the
International Business Leaders Forum (IBLF Global, 2017), the
Caux
Round Table (CRT, 2014), Ceres (2017), the Climate Disclosure
Standards Board (CDSB, 2017), the Task Force on Climate-
Related
Financial Disclosures (TCFD) and the European Commission
Expert Group on Sustainable Finance (European Commission,
2017). In order to achieve greater transparency as well as better
comparability between reporting frameworks, standards and re-

quirements, the Corporate Register, a global online directory of
corporate responsibility (CR) reports has recently been launched
(Corporate Register, 2017a). Other communication platforms
include the Corporate Reporting Dialogue (Corporate Register,
2017b) and the Reporting Exchange (The Reporting Exchange,
2017). Then there are organizations that promote CSR and stan-
dards. The Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB),
for
example, is an American organization with a mandate to
develop
and establish industry-based sustainability standards (SASB,
2014).
There are also organization that are committed to developing
global standards for sustainability reporting. The Global
Reporting
Initiative (GRI), which is an international independent
organization
started its operations more than twenty years ago and its
standards
are, by far, the most adopted sustainability disclosure standard
today (Hicks, 2017). In October 2016, the Global Reporting
Initiative
(GRI) launched its GRI Standards after previously releasing
four sets
of guidelines (GRI, 2016). Governments of 42 countries refer to
the
GRI standards (KPMG, 2016).
In 2001, France became one of the few countries to require CSR
reporting (Chauvey et al., 2014). In December 2014, the
European
Union adopted Directive 2014/95/EU on disclosure of non-
financial
and diversity information by certain large undertakings and
groups

(European Commission, 2014). Germany, for example, imple-
mented the new CSR-regulation for non-financial information in
the annual report (in which it requires companies to disclose in-
formation on their environmental and social aspects
(Bundesanzeiger, 2017). In the United States, the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) is currently reviewing its
approach to
sustainability reporting. In 2016, the SEC issued what they
called a
“Concept Release” asking for public feedback on 340 topics on
financial disclosure (SEC, 2016). In Canada, the government
issued a
CSR implementation guide in which it provides guidance
regarding
sustainability reporting (Government of Canada, 2017).
1.2. Integrated reporting
As mentioned before, during and after the 2008 global financial
crisis, many stakeholders became sorely aware that corporate
reporting did not provide sufficient information to properly
assess
corporate risk as it failed to address the corporate long-term
value
creation process. This in addition to experiencing the fallout of
many global corporate scandals, led to more and more voices
asking
not only for better reporting but also for long-term and
integrated
thinking. For this movement to continue, it was and is crucial
that
all stakeholders understand the links between financial and non-
financial results and the turbulent business environment that
companies are facing (Churet and Eccles, 2014).
Of all the corporate reports, financial reports have been found

the least valuable source of information when it comes to sus-
tainability indicators and information diversity (Frost et al.,
2005).
Neither the financial report nor the sustainability report has
been
considered to provide sufficient information when determining a
company's long-term value creation (Boesso, 2003). This
continued
to stand in contrast to the growing need that shareholders, stan-
dard setters and other stakeholders have for information related
to
the long-term strategy and business environment factors of an
organization (KPMG Canada, 2014).
Over the years, the International Integrated Reporting Council
(IIRC) has established itself as global partnership between
standard
setters, organizations, regulatory bodies, investors, and others
that
promotes discussion and communication on organizational value
creation as “the next step in corporate reporting” (IIRC, 2015).
The
IIRC has developed the International Integrated Reporting <IR>
Framework as an improved version of what is currently reported
in
financial and non-financial reports (IIRC, 2015). IR has been
described as future-oriented reporting that can explain links be-
tween main performance drivers (Higgins et al., 2014). The
current
<IR> Framework claims that the main objective of integrated
reporting is to clearly identify how the organization creates
long-
term value with investors as the primary audience.
Some of the standards setters have joined forces in the global

standard setting process. In 2013, GRI and IIRC announced that
they
intend deepen their cooperation (GRI & IIRC, 2013). In the
same
year, the IIRC signed a Memorandum of understanding with the
SASB to reduce internal barriers and duplication and to achieve
more efficient reporting practices and processes (IIRC, 2016).
More
recently, the GRI and the IIRC have started to work together to
clarify how companies can use both the GRI Standards and the
<IR>
Framework in their reporting (GRI, 2017).
At a global level, integrated reporting increasingly has been
supported by a slew of organizations including the main
accounting
firms (e.g. Deloitte UK, 2016; EY, 2016; KPMG, 2013; PwC,
2016),
international and national professional organizations (e.g.
ACCA,
2017; CPA Canada, 2015, and others) and regulatory bodies
including the SASB, the IFAC and IASB (e.g. IAS Plus, 2013;
IIRC,
2016). Many governments, security commissions, and regulators
have started to establish new research support initiatives, guide-
lines as well as actual regulations, including Japan (METI,
2015), the
UK (ICAS, 2017), Singapore (De Villiers et al., 2014), and
India (SEBI,
2017). Other countries have also started working on integrated
reporting such as Germany (PwC, 2014), France (Minist!ere des
Affaires Etrang!eres, 2012) and Brazil (KPMG, 2016).
By 2020, the IIRC wants to achieve mandatory integrated
reporting for all public companies, however, except for certain
companies in Denmark and South Africa, integrated reporting is

currently not yet a requirement (Sierra-Garcia et al., 2013).1
There
have been movements in various countries that suggest imple-
mentation of the <IR> framework. A study by the GRI,
however,
found that only one third of companies have implemented <IR>.
Approximately 50% of all integrated reports actually were two
in-
dividual publications put together as one with just a few mutual
references (GRI, 2015).
South Africa and Japan have been named as being in the lead in
adopting IR but currently around 1500 global companies are
already using or referencing IR (IIRC, 2017).
Recent research has also shown that the integrated reporting
perspective will produce more relevant reports (ACCA, 2017;
Adams, 2017). Another research study shows that the reporting
practices of Danish companies had improved significantly due
to
the nonfinancial reporting legislation (Deloitte, 2017). In
Germany,
1 In this context, it should be mentioned that the requirements
for integrated
reporting for companies listed at the Johannesburg Stock
Exchange differ from the
IIRC Framework.
P.F.A. Dilling, P. Harris / Journal of Cleaner Production 191
(2018) 350e360 351
it was found that the majority of the DAX 30 companies were
continuing their integrated reporting journey (PwC, 2014). In

Australia, few voluntary integrated reports are currently being
produced but a movement towards integrated reporting has been
noticed over the years (KPMG Australia, 2016; Stubbs and
Higgins,
2015). Similarly, in China, where a large number of annual
reports
of publicly listed companies on the main stock exchanges was
analyzed it was found that voluntary disclosure extent had
increased (Wang et al., 2013). Analyzing 2011 annual reports
and
related online reporting practices for a few selected New
Zealand
companies, researchers found that none of them published a full
integrated report. It was found that current reporting lacked
inte-
gration and appropriate attentiveness towards integrated
reporting
(Stent and Dowler, 2015). Canadian businesses in general were
not
adequately prepared in terms of knowledge, mindset, and re-
sources for a more integrated model of corporate reporting
(Hao,
2014). For example, only three Canadian companies (Vancity,
Teck
Resources and Port Metro Vancouver) participated in the IIRC's
Pilot Programme (CPA Canada, 2015). For listed Canadian com-
panies, overall it was found that CSR disclosures have become
more
transparent and comprehensive (Mahoney and Thorne, 2013).
One important economy that has not embraced integrated
reporting is the United States where also sustainability
reporting
adoption lags behind compared to Europe, Australasia and
South
Africa (EY, 2016). In the <IR> examples database, in 2017, just

a
fraction of all companies was listed as being <IR> reporters
from the
United States. In 2013, only 1.4% of S&P companies produced
fully
integrated reports (IRRCI, 2013). In 2017, however, the IIRC
states that
“many of America's leading brands have adopted integrated
report-
ing over recent years” (IIRC, 2017). It is noteworthy that, in a
recent
U.S. survey, respondents strongly agreed that integrated
reporting
would affect the company's sustainability performance
positively
(EY, 2016). However, some US companies seem still to be on
the fence
when it comes to the value of integrated reporting (IFAC,
2015).
1.3. The extractive industry
In the extractive industry, several organizations have been
working on sustainability reporting practices for many years
(Deloitte, 2017). Voluntary guidelines for sustainability
reporting in
the oil and gas industry are now in their third edition with the
latest
revision made at the end of 2016 (IPIECA, 2016). In a 2016
survey on
sustainability reporting, the IPIECA found that 85% of
respondents
have seen changes in recent years related to key sustainability
issues
of climate change, health and safety performance (IPIECA,
2016).

When asked about future key developments, integrated reporting
was named as the top development. In 2013, member companies
of
the International Council of Mining and Minerals (ICMM)
reaffirmed
their support for GRI by committing to report in accordance
with
GRI's G4 guidelines (ICMM, 2015). In March 2009, the
Canadian
government announced a new strategy with the objective to pro-
mote CSR activities by Canadian extractive companies working
abroad (Natural Resources Canada (NRC), 2009). The results of
a NRC
research initiative showed that the strategy seemed to be having
an
effect as companies increasingly reported on CSR (NRC,
2017a).2
Mining companies have often been cited as leaders in CSR
reporting (KMPG, 2015); however, over the years, questions
have
been raised regarding the validity of these statements (Lodhia
and
Hess, 2014; Murguia and Boehling, 2013). Some researchers
also
found that the reporting of environmental performance for oil
and
gas companies was lagging behind social performance reporting
(Wan et al., 2016).
In Canada, high levels of CSR disclosure were reported for
mining companies (KPMG Canada, 2014). In China, the mining
and
minerals industry is one of the leading industries in CSR
reporting
(Dong, 2012). In the US, the National Research Council (NRC)

found
that energy and mining companies have published extensive sus-
tainability reports (NRC, 2013). In fact, it was suggested that
oil and
gas companies prepared the highest quality reports (KPMG,
2013).
In 2013, 84% of companies in the mining industry published a
sustainability report. (KPMG, 2013). Some researchers called
the
development a “clear evolution in depth and comprehensiveness
of
sustainability reports” (Perez and Sanchez, 2009) whereas
others
stated that organizations started to shift information from the
annual report to other reports (Bewley and Magness, 2012).
Companies operating in these industries typically face many
environmental issues and it has therefore been assumed that
they
would be particularly interesting when exploring CSR and long-
term value creation (Jenkins and Yakovleva, 2006). In order “to
maintain their social licenses to operate”, extractive companies
have started embracing CSR very early on (Scott, 2000). It has
been
reported that oil and gas companies were some of the first
reporting on environmental matters on a voluntary basis
(Guenther
et al., 2006). Fortune Global 250 mining and metal companies
have
been found to provide the most environmental reports (Kolk et
al.,
2001). To summarize, quite a few research studies have been
con-
ducted in the past, some focusing on sustainability reporting,
others on integrated reporting, and others again on reporting in
specific countries or industries. However, no study has

investigated
the specific reporting on long-term value creation, especially
not
for Canadian companies in the extractive sector. The underlying
study is trying to fill this gap. More specifically, the study
results
will add to the literature by comparing the disclosure level
(quality)
and extent (quantity) on long-term value creation for Canadian
listed mining and energy companies for fiscal years 2012 and
2014.
In addition, it provides insights into reporting quality and
quantity
in key content areas specific to the process of long-term value
creation.
In the first section of the paper the reader was introduced to the
research field of reporting on long-term value creation. Then, in
the
second section, the research theory and study framework will be
outlined while in the third section the research methods will be
explained. Results will be outlined in the fourth section
followed by
the fifth section that will include a thorough discussion. In the
sixth
and final section of the paper, the conclusions and recommenda-
tions will be presented.
2. Research theory and study framework
There are four main theories that can explain voluntary corpo-
rate disclosure: The first is Freeman's famous stakeholder
theory
(1984) that he states that organizations have to deal with stake-
holders that affect them as well as with stakeholders that are
affected by the companies (Freeman, 2010). The second theory

is
legitimacy theory and in this context “… has the role of
explaining
the behavior of organizations in implementing and developing
voluntary social and environmental disclosure of information in
order to fulfill their social contract …” (Schiopoiu Burlea and
Popa,
2017). In other words, legitimacy theory finds that any
organization
inherently has a social responsibility towards society (Deegan,
2 In 2015, the Canadian government published a CSR Checklist
for Canadian
mining companies working abroad that included brief guidance
on CSR reporting
(NRC, 2017c). In addition, a web based data repository was
designed to publicly
showcase and promote CSR practices of mining and exploration
companies (NRC,
2017a).In 2015, the Federal Government of Canada brought into
force the Extrac-
tive Sector Measures Act (ESTMA) to increase transparency and
deter corruption in
the extractive sector (Natural Resources Canada, 2017b). CSR
reporting guidelines
were also established and updated by the Prospectors &
Developers Association of
Canada (PDAC) (PDAC, 2014).
(2018) 350e360352
2000; Campbell et al., 2003). New research also assumed that
ef-

forts towards increasing transparency regarding its societal
impact
have been successful in also increasing corporate value
(Ioannou
and Serafeim, 2017). Signaling theory states that companies
will
try to signal their type by publicly disclosing information
(Verrecchia, 2001). In other words, companies with the goal to
show that they are “good corporate citizens” will further
increase
disclosure (Ioannou and Serafeim, 2017). Lastly, with regard to
agency theory, companies disclose information to mitigate the
agency problem to reduce agency costs (Barako et al., 2006). In
line
with this, it is assumed that organizations disclose information
in
order to inform their stakeholders on any circumstances or
events
that potentially could impact on corporate value (Chan et al.,
2013).
All of these theories should be considered when analyzing
voluntary corporate reporting; however, since reporting on
long-
term value creation currently is not mandatory, and energy and
mining companies are in what could be considered “sensitive”
in-
dustries, especially the legitimacy and signaling theory guided
the
underlying research.
Since 2003, the sustainability reporting growth rate applying
the GRI framework has increased by 20% per annum (Dennis et
al.,
2015). Research into changes in CSR disclosure from 2004 to
2010

found significant increases in the quantity of CSR disclosure, as
well
as some evidence of increased quality (Chauvey et al., 2014).
Another longitudinal study comparing CSR disclosure between
1977 and 2010 found that the breadth of CSR disclosure
increased
significantly (Cho et al.; 2015). An analysis of voluntary
disclosure
and structured reports practices of the companies included in
the
S&P 500 Index revealed that in 2011 about 20 percent of the
companies were publishing sustainability, responsibility,
citizen-
ship, or some related type of nonfinancial reports (Boerner
(2014).
In summary, over the last two decades, a dramatic increase of
disclosure of non-financial voluntary information in general has
been identified by researchers.
Already in 2011, an increased information quantity for reports
could be observed which indicated a stronger commitment
toward
CSR (Vurro and Perrini, 2011) whereas another non-financial
reporting study showed a connection between disclosure volume
and quality (Dong, 2012). Meanwhile, a review of Dutch reports
led
to the conclusion that companies were devoting more attention
to
integrated reporting (AFM, 2016). A significant increase in the
extent and quality of IR practice for South African companies
was
also observed (Haji and Anifowose, 2016; Setia et al., 2015). In
Australia, researchers concluded that the fact that the majority
of
mining companies produced a sustainability or integrated report
confirmed that non-financial reports were increasing and ESG

is-
sues have been becoming important among various stakeholders
(Heenetigala et al., 2015).
As indicated above, several previous studies have found evi-
dence that CSR disclosure has been increasing over time. The
assumption for the underlying study was that the same will hold
true for long-term value creation disclosure. The growing
impor-
tance of long-term value creation for companies coupled with
the
fact that the traditional accounting model seem not to be able to
provide crucial information, and the stakeholder need for
disclo-
sure of relevant information present organizations with a
compelling reason to publish long-term value creation
information.
Therefore, the three hypotheses are as follows:
Hypothesis 1. (H1): Canadian public energy and mining com-
panies have increased the quality of reporting on long-term
value
creation in their combined annual financial and sustainability
re-
ports for the 2014 fiscal year as compared to the 2012 fiscal
year.
value
creation in their annual financial reports for the 2014 fiscal year
as
compared to the 2012 fiscal year.

value
creation in their annual sustainability reports for the 2014 fiscal
year as compared to the 2012 fiscal year.
3. Methods
In a prior study conducted by the authors, after a thorough re-
view of all related literature as well as reporting standards and
regulations such as the <IR> and GRI G4, a decision was made
to
group all relevant variables into the following four main
categories
titled long-terminism, linkage between sustainability and finan-
cials, and outside and inside linkages (Dilling, 2016). By doing
so, it
was believed that all relevant disclosure dimensions and
elements
related to long-term value creation were captured (Dilling,
2016). 3
The disclosure quality and quantity for each individual item in
each
of the four main categories were then analyzed for all
companies in
both reports for fiscal years 2012 and 2014. As an example, the
category “Long-terminism”, for example, included all
information
regarding the long-term perspective related to the company
(vision, mission, corporate values), information on leadership,
corporate safety, aspects of innovation as well as risk
management.
The second category “linkage between sustainability and finan-
cials” included information on any key performance indicators
(KPIs) namely incidents when financial information was
connected

with sustainability information, as well as information on
materi-
ality analysis, climate risk and new technology, cost of energy,
and
how the company performs economically. The third category
called
“Inside linkage” captured information related to corporate
gover-
nance, diversity, involvement of management involvement,
work-
place practices, corporate incentives, recruitment, retention as
well
as information on the management information system. Finally,
in
the fourth category called “outside linkage”, information on
local
markets, local hiring and suppliers, local infrastructure, and
part-
nerships and relationships the communities was included
(Dilling,
2016. As previously mentioned, the categories and individual
disclosure indicators as well as the long-term value creation
disclosure index were developed and applied in a previous
study.
For further details on the categorization, please refer to Table 1
in
the appendix in which detailed information on all categories is
provided.
The study sample consisted of all energy and mining companies
which were included in the Toronto Stock Exchange Index 60
(TSX60) during the respective years and had published a
financial
report as well as a sustainability report in 2012 and 2014. The
total
was 20 companies with 40 reports in fiscal year 2012; 26

individual
variables were scored and therefore a total of 1040 indicators on
long-term value creation were analyzed. For 2014, there was
one
less company included in the sample as it had merged with an
international competitor and the consolidated report would have
3 The individual variables and their key content within the
categories were
closely aligned with the <IR> framework with additional G4
content for additional
information on sustainability issues where deemed crucial for
comprehensive
reporting on long-term value creation. By doing that some of
the variables went
beyond the <IR> framework publication requirements. The
above-mentioned four
categories were developed for a structured and efficient
empirical data analysis.
Based on these, a disclosure index for long-term value creation
reporting was
previously developed and is presented in Fig. 5 in the appendix
(Dilling, 2016).
(2018) 350e360 353
not provided comparable data. Therefore, for the combined
sample,
there were 19 companies with 38 reports (Dilling, 2016).4
As a proxy for information quantity, the number of individual
words related to long-term value creation was chosen assuming
that volume in words signifies importance (Krippendorf, 2013;

Deegan and Rankin,1996; Chan et al., 2013). Many researchers
have
been using content analysis to analyze large volumes of text
con-
tent by extracting important related information. By using this
standard methodology, it was possible to capture the frequency
of
words used by organizations in their annual reports when
describing their long-term value creating activities.
As stated previously, the study purpose was to analyze long-
term value creation disclosures of Canadian extractive
companies
over a time period. More specifically, a longitudinal analysis of
disclosure practices of Canadian publicly traded energy and
mining
companies was performed. This was done in an effort to under-
stand if there has been an increase in the quantity and quality of
long-term value creation disclosure between 2012 and 2014 in
th
annual financial and CSR reports.
To test the hypotheses, one tailed, paired-samples t-tests were
used. In support of the hypothesis, the fiscal year of the
respective
company report (fiscal year 2012 and 2014) were the
independent
variables while the disclosure scores and words related to long-
term value creation reporting for the respective fiscal year were
the dependent variables.
4. Results
As mentioned previously, the companies in the sample were all
Canadian companies listed at the TSE. As can be seen in Table
2 in

the Appendix, in 2014, the average age of the companies was 47
years. The companies experienced, on average, an increase in
total
revenues from $B11 to $B12.5 whereas the average total gain
decreased from $M885 in 2012 to $M771 in 2014. The
percentage of
independent board members decreased slightly from 84% to
83%. In
2014, only 6 of the companies were members of the Dow Jones
Sustainability Index compared to 9 in 2012. The number of
com-
panies listed as members of the Canadian Corporate Knight
Index
also decreased substantially from 13 companies in 2012 to 8 in
2014. In 2014, 8 companies had their CSR report externally
assured,
2 more than in 2012. For further information on data as well as
on
scoring, please refer to Tables 2 and 3 in the Appendix. In 2012,
45%
of the companies were operating in the energy sector and 55%
of
the companies were basic material companies. This slightly
changed as in 2014, one less energy company was included in
the
sample. The frequencies for the quantity and quality variables
are
presented in Table 4 in the Appendix. It can easily be seen
below in
Fig. 2 below that the average combined score was 3.25 and 4.52
in
2014. For the CSR reports, in 2012 the average was 2.14 and in
2014
it was 3.03. For the financial reports, it was 1.11 in 2012 and
1.49 in
2014. The lowest combined score of a company was 1.97 in

2012
and 2.91 in 2014. The highest combined score in 2012 achieved
was
4.95 in 2012 and 6.04 in 2014.
For the individual companies, in 2012, the average disclosure
score for CSR reports (CSR Score) ranged from 1.15 to 3.39 and
it was
much lower for the annual reports (AR Score) ranging from 0.63
to
1.61 (see Table 4 in the Appendix). It has to be kept in mind
that
average was here in the context of all scores that were scored
for all
reporting categories per each company. The combined 2012
scores
ranged from 1.97 (lowest score for Eldorado) to 4.95 (highest
for
Teck Resources) when adding both the AR and CSR scores (It is
important to note that the highest possible combined score was
10). For 2014, the disclosure score for all individual CSR
reports (CSR
Score) ranged from 1.72 to 4.22. In 2014, the annual report
score (AR
Score) ranged from 1.05 to a maximum of 2.15. In 2014, the
lowest
overall combined score for individual companies was 2.91
(Eldor-
ado again) and the maximum score was 6.04 (Teck Resources
again), which represented quite an increase over the two years
of
reporting. As already seen earlier, the average combined scores
for
all companies were 3.25 in 2012 and 4.52 in 2014.
Total words in the individual 2012 annual financial reports

ranged from 904 to 5107 per individual report, however, a
higher
word count was found in the sustainability reports with a
Fig. 2. The average disclosure scores on long-term value
creation (annual financial and
CSR reports) for fiscal years 2012 and 2014.
4 As all company reports varied enormously in their focus on
certain subjects and
their use of terminology, it was crucial to ensure validity and
consistency in using
the content analysis method. Therefore, several pilot testing
rounds were per-
formed in which one author reviewed the reports and assigned
quality disclosure
scores and the other author independently did the same for 4
reports (2 annual
reports and 2 sustainability reports) with the result of only a
few minor discrep-
ancies. Based on these, categories and scoring were further
clarified, modified and
reviewed again (Dilling, 2016).For the same reason, it was
important to develop
strict guidelines to assess the information content for each
category. In more detail,
an analysis and subsequent scoring took place for each
assessment item. Then,
based on the scoring methodology of Zyl and Van (2013), a
score between 0 and 5
was assigned. In Table 2 in the appendix, all scores and their
respective disclosure
scope and type of information are listed (Dilling, 2016).The
scoring was performed
for financial and for sustainability reports separately. This
procedure was per-

formed for all 39 reports. As mentioned, 39 reports and 26
indicators were scored,
resulting in a total of 1014 indicators that were analyzed for
each category at a time
thereby ensuring consistency and attention to detail.Through the
assessment of the
disclosure content for each variable it was then possible to
determine the overall
disclosure quality and quantity (Dilling, 2016). In order to
calculate the quality of
disclosing information concerning long-term value creation, a
disclosure index was
created; a measure that is quite common in the research field of
information
disclosure studies (Boesso & Kumar, 2009). The Combined
Quality Index for long-
term creation disclosure score (COMBINED AR_CSR SCORE)
for the individual
company was calculated by adding the Disclosure Score for the
annual report score
(AR score) and disclosure score for the CSR report (CSR
score):Quality Index for
long-term creation disclosure score (COMBINED AR&CSR
SCORE) ¼ AR Score þ CSR
Score.The AR score was derived when adding the Disclosure
Score for the Annual
report, long-term score (AR ScoreLT), disclosure score for the
annual report,
financial (AR ScoreFIN), disclosure score for the annual report,
inside (AR Score-
INSIDE) and disclosure score for the annual report, outside (AR
ScoreOUTSIDE). For
the CSR scores, the respective score names applied:
AR SCORE ¼ AR SCORELT þ AR SCOREFIN þ AR
SCOREINSIDE þ AR SCOREOUTSIDE.
CSR SCORE ¼ CSR SCORELT þ CSR SCOREFIN þ CSR

SCOREINSIDE þ CSR SCORE-
OUTSIDE.
The average AR SCORELT was calculated by averaging all
scores for ARLT indicators,
similarly, the average CSR SCOREFIN was calculated by
averaging all scores for
CSRFIN indicators, and so forth. Finally, the average
COMBINED AR_CSR SCORE for
all companies was calculated by dividing the sum of all scores
by the number of
reports.
Average Combined AR&CSR Scoreit ¼
Pn
i¼1
ARScoret
na þ
Pn
i¼1
CSRScoret
nc
i ¼ company, t ¼ time, na ¼ number of annual financial reports,
nc ¼ number of CSR
reports.
(2018) 350e360354
minimum of 1927 to a maximum of 13,562 words and an
average

word count of 5998 (2720 for annual reports) for all companies.
For
2014, the lowest word count in the individual annual reports
was
1701 and the highest was 14,088. For the CSR report, the lowest
was
3002 and the highest was 38,299 (See Table 6 in the Appendix).
Total words counted for 2012 (combined financial and CSR) re-
ports ranged from 3675 to 18,669 for the individual companies
with an average value of 8718 words for all companies. Again,
for
2014, the numbers were quite a bit higher with a minimum of
5757
(an increase of more than 50%) and a maximum of 44,317 words
(an
increase of 137% compared to two years prior). Overall average
for
all companies for the two reports combined were 8718 in 2012
and
15,525 words in 2014 (see Table 4).
When analyzing the individual disclosure categories, as illus-
trated in Fig. 4 it is easy to see that for the 2012 annual report
the
maximum word count was found in the long-term perspective
category and for the 2012 CSR report, the highest count was
found
in the long-term perspective and outside linkage category. The
other categories were touched on very slightly compared to the
disclosure extent in the respective reports. For the 2014 annual
financial report, disclosure had even increased in the long-term
perspective category to more information disclosed in this cate-
gory. Within the long-term perspective category, the most infor-
mation was provided in the risk management sub-category (a
disclosure that is also required by financial accounting

standards).
This was also true for the 2014 financial report.
For the 2012 CSR report, much of the information that was
provided was focused on the enhanced safety sub-category. As
for
the other subcategories, it seemed like the information provided
to
report readers was rather balanced for all categories. The other
sub-
categories with the most information provided were risk man-
agement, talent recruitment, development & retention, and com-
munities. For the 2014 CSR report, the additional sub-
categories
with a higher level of information provided were materiality
analysis and indirect economic impacts. Further details can be
extracted from Table 7 in the Appendix.
Since there was a correlation between number of words and
disclosure score, there were very similar results for disclosure
quality: The 2012 score for the CSR report in the outside
linkage
category was at 2.64 and increased to 3.67 in 2014. The average
2012 CSR scores for the long-term category for all CSR reports
was
at 2.69 and the average 2012 AR score for the same category
was at
2.16. For 2014, the CSR score increased to an impressive 3.23
score
and the AR score increased to 2.65. In all categories, increases
in
scores were observed. In the category inside linkage, there was
a
very noticeable increase from 2012 to 2014 (0.57e1.03) for the
financial reports. For the CSR reports, a substantial increases in

all
categories could be observed. Fig. 5 below illustrates the
differences
in disclosure scores for the main categories for all annual
reports.
With regard to the sub-categories, the areas of risk manage-
ment, enhanced safety, communities, and indirect economic
effects
were heavily discussed in the 2014 CSR reports whereas risk
management, the link between business and sustainability
strategy
and enhanced safety were discussed in much detail in the 2014
financial reports. It can therefore be stated that the two topics
that
both reports covered in detail were risk management and
enhanced safety.
As can be seen in Fig. 6 below, topics that were not discussed
as
much, especially in the 2012 CSR report, were talent,
recruitment
and retention, climate change risk, governance, cost of energy,
economic performance, incentives, responsible work practices
(other than safety) and management information systems. For
the
2014 CSR report, comparable to the other sub-categories not
much
information could be found on MIS, talent, recruitment and
retention, and economic performance. Table 7 in the Appendix
provides more details on scores in the respective categories for
all
reports for both fiscal years 2012 and 2014.
With regard to the biggest changes in disclosure scores (quality)
from the 2012 to 2014 CSR report, they were found in the

variables
responsible work practices (þ1.66 in score), governance (þ1.63),
outside relationships (þ1.47), cost of energy (þ1.37) and
indirect
economic benefits (þ1.26). Not many changes were noticeable
in
the areas of risk management, talent & leadership &
communities.
Hypotheses H1, H2, and H3 predicted that public Canadian en-
ergy and mining companies had increased their disclosure level
on
long-term value creation in their annual reports for the year
2014
compared to 2012. Therefore, one tailed, paired-samples t-tests
were used to test the hypotheses at an alpha level of p ¼ 0.05.
An
examination of a frequency distribution for the variables in
2012
and 2014 showed a normal distribution for the respective depen-
dent variable for each year albeit somewhat positively
skewness.
Therefore, it could be assumed that the sample size of 19
companies
Fig. 4. The disclosure quantity per individual long-term value
creation category, measured for fiscal years 2012 and 2014.
(2018) 350e360 355
was sufficiently large and therefore robust to violations of as-
sumptions of normality.

The companies had a mean disclosure score of long-term value
creation of 3.246 (n ¼ 19, SD ¼ 0.916) in fiscal year 2012 and
4.522
(n ¼ 19, SD ¼ 1.013) in fiscal year 2014 (refer to Table 4 in the
ap-
pendix). The increase of 1.277 (SD ¼ 0.582) in the mean of the
disclosure score of the companies was statistically significant
(t ¼ #9.560, DF ¼ 18, p ¼ 0.000) (see Table 8 below). The
effect size
of r ¼ 1.322 is considered large or substantial. The mean
number of
disclosures increased by 1.277 between fiscal year 2014 and
2012
which represented a 39.3 percent increase over two years (an
average increase of 19.6 percent per year). The analysis of the
long-
term value creation disclosure scores for both reports analyzed
in
this study yielded similar results.
Table 5 in the appendix shows a statistics summary comparing
the disclosure levels for year 2012 and 2014 for all three reports
(annual report, CSR report and combined report). As Table 8 in-
dicates, the increase in the disclosure level between the two
years
2012 and 2014 was statistically significant for each report
score.
Further, the results of the Wilcoxon matched-pairs sign-ranks
test also confirmed that the disclosure level of listed Canadian
energy and mining companies was significantly greater in the
year
2014 than in 2012 (see also Table 9 in Appendix). The empirical
data
indicated that all 19 companies increased (with a mean rank of

10)
the disclosure level in reporting year 2014 as compared to 2012.
Based on this data, a statistically significant increase in the
number
of companies that increased the disclosure level in reporting
year
2014 compared to 2012 could be concluded (z ¼ #3.823, p ¼
0.000).
As can be seen in Table 8 and 9, the results for the annual
financial
and CSR reports were very similar.
Based on the above results of the t-test and the Wilcoxon
matched-pairs signed-ranks test used for evaluating disclosure
Fig. 5. Long-term value disclosure scores for annual financial
and CSR reports for fiscal years 2012 and 2014, measured for
each category.
Fig. 6. Long-term value creation disclosure scores for annual
financial and CSR reports measured for fiscal years 2012 and
2014 for each individual variable.
(2018) 350e360356
levels on long-term value creation by Canadian companies for
the
reporting year 2012 compared to 2014, H1 was supported. The
companies in our sample significantly increased the disclosure
level of their long-term value creation in 2014 as compared to
2012.
The same was found for the annual financial reports (H2) and
the

sustainability reports (H3).
Some examples of significant changes in the annual reports
from 2012 to 2014 can be found in the Appendix (Excerpts 1).
5. Discussion
All research projects come with certain limitations. This one
was
no different. Firstly, there were the typical shortcomings when
using computer supported content analysis (Conway, 2006).
Sec-
ondly, the researchers could have made mistakes when
analyzing
the data and determining disclosure scores or how many words
they deemed relevant for certain topics. To combat this
limitation
in the future, it is recommended to use qualitative coding
software
for further research. Another limitation would be the fact that
the
long-term value creation overall and sub-category quality and
quantity scores included all kinds of texts in the annual reports,
including stories and anecdotes which could have led to a
heavier
word count in certain areas.
As always, the secondary sources usage could have also caused
bias. Moreover, any disclosures that were outside of the
financial
and sustainability reports (corporate homepages,
announcements,
press releases, Facebook information, Twitter information,
corpo-
rate blogs, and others) were not included in the analysis and
therefore, disclosed information could have been missed. In

addi-
tion, the study sample was quite small and included only
Canadian
companies in two sectors. Recommendations would be to
increase
the sample size and to include more companies and other in-
dustries (and eventually other countries). While this study was
longitudinal in nature, it only compared two different time
periods.
Again, it is recommended to expand the sample and include date
from other reporting years. There is also the question if
reducing
such nuanced and complex reports (disclosure quality) to
numer-
ical scores was the best approach to analyze the information.
However, the data analysis and the empirical results should be
seen
as a first step in analyzing the contents of financial as well as
non-
financial reports related to long-term value creation. With time
and
improved methods, hopefully it will become easier and more
efficient to conduct content research in this important field.
Finally, good reporting does not always coincide with good
performance, and therefore it is important to follow up and
determine if companies are really “walking the walk” and not
just
“talking the talk”.
Despite these limitations, the study results suggest that listed
Canadian energy and mining companies increased the disclosure
level of their long-term value creation over the timeframe from
2012 to 2014 significantly.

Even though there is an increase in disclosure overall,
disclosure
levels for certain categories can still be described as low. In this
respect, the findings were consistent with many previous studies
(Chauvey et al., 2014; Zyl and Van, 2013; Cheng et al., 2014).
Some
researchers lamented the difficult circumstances around
reporting
disclosure and found comparability of company performance as
well
as reports and study results very challenging, if not impossible
(Spence and Gray, 2007; Boiral and Henri, 2015; Fonseca et al.,
2014.
The IIRC has been playing a major role in the integrated
reporting landscape and certainly will do so in the future as
well. In
fact, the IIRC is pushing its framework for application in more
and
more countries. The results of a 2016 literature review of
integrated
reporting research showed that a worldwide acceptance of
reporting according to the <IR> framework seems to be
developing
(Velte and Stawinoga, 2016). This leads to the question if the
<IR>
Integrated Reporting framework and standards should be used
for
worldwide adoption. The <IR> definitively will and should be
considered but it is not without flaws and some of its
stakeholders
have claimed that it has been published prematurely and further
adjustments are needed to make it a globally acceptable
framework
(Dumitru and Guse, 2017).

In fact, many researchers have been questioning if using the
IRRC is the best approach. In a study that analyzed the reports
of a
sample of IR early adopters showed that companies with weak
financial performance tended to write more but less concise and
optimistic reports (Melloni et al., 2017). Questions about the
IRRC,
its processes and perspective have also been raised (Morros,
2016).
On the other hand, a survey of executives of listed South
African
companies found that they valued the process of developing the
IR,
mainly because of its emphasis on reputation, stakeholder
engagement and needs (Steyn, 2014). In France, regulators were
urged to encourage experimentation to identify and disseminate
best practices. (Paris Financial Marketplace, 2016). The
objective
Table 8
Paired-samples t-test calculated for the annual report, CSR
report and overall report average long-term value creation
disclosure scores.
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval
of
the Difference
Lower Upper
Pair 1 2012 Annual report average disclosure
score - 2014 Annual report

average disclosure score
#0.38302 0.23392 0.05367 #0.49577 #0.27028 #7.137 18 0.000
Pair 2 2012 CSR average disclosure
score - 2014 CSR average
disclosure score
#0.89371 0.47623 0.10925 #1.12324 #0.66417 #8.180 18 0.000
Pair 3 2012 Overall combined
score - 2014 Overall combined score
#1.27673 0.58214 0.13355 #1.55731 #0.99615 #9.560 18 0.000
Pair 4 2012 Annual report average
word count - 2014 Annual report
average word count
#2649.105 2760.440 633.288 #3979.595 #1318.616 #4.183 18
0.001
Pair 5 2012 CSR average word
count - 2014 CSR average word count
#4158.263 6018.427 1380.722 #7059.052 #1257.474 #3.012 18
0.007
Pair 6 2012 Overall combined
word count - 2014 Overall
combined word count
#6807.368 6282.463 1441.296 #9835.419 #3779.318 #4.723 18
0.000

(2018) 350e360 357
there was for the IIRC framework to remain a voluntary
approach.
This approach allows flexibility and time to choose and develop
the
options that suit the individual company. Some recent evidence
actually showed that companies in countries with reporting
regu-
lation increased disclosure as well as their efforts to increase
the
comparability and credibility of the disclosed information
(Ioannou
and Serafeim, 2017). In addition, experts agree that long-term
reporting is here to stay, and companies are urged to get started
and reap the benefits (Burke and Clark, 2016).
In any case, concerns raised by researchers and practitioners
need to be taken very seriously. There are certainly valid
arguments
and therefore there is a need for further elaborations and more
stakeholders involved when determining which framework will
work best for global implementation.
It is strongly recommended to widen the research of reporting
of companies in the extractive sector as they have been front-
runners when it comes to innovative disclosure. Mining
companies
have an important role to play regarding social issues including
but
not limited to health, safety, poverty, community development
(Lodhia and Hess, 2014). It is important to figure out the what
the
variables are that lead to improved reporting and increased

trans-
parency. Climate change is expected to have a major impact on
mining companies' practices in the future (Lodhia and Hess,
2014)
and research is needed to improve our understanding how com-
panies deal with this issue. There hasn't been done a whole lot
of
reporting in this area yet. The same is true for water accounting.
Researchers agree that further rigorous research is a must in the
area of long-term value creation reporting (Simnett and
Huggins,
2015; De Villiers et al., 2014). More specifically, further
research
should provide clarification and information on minimum re-
quirements and how high-quality reporting can be achieved in
order to achieve transparency and comparability. Differences in
stakeholders, industries, sectors, and company situations need
to
be specifically and extensively considered. This is underscored
by
differences in reporting from country to country which has been
empirically confirmed (Vaz et al., 2016). For example, it seems
that
legal, political, economic, and cultural characteristics and size,
profitability, and industry explain the decision to present an IR
(Stacchezzini et al., 2016; De Villiers and Marques, 2015;
Serafeim,
2015). Why is this the case?
Without any further delay, further research needs to include
collaborations between practitioners and academics in order to
combat the theory and practice gap which is especially to be
observed in the accounting research field (Burritt and Tingey-
Holyoak, 2012; Dumay et al., 2016; Evans et al., 2012; Bilolo et
al.,
2014).

6. Conclusion & recommendations
The results of this empirical study showed that reporting on
long-term value creation in the Canadian extractive sector has
increased immensely over the timeframe of two years
(2012e2014). However, at the same time it became very
noticeable
that reports were very diverse and very difficult to compare.
The
question is now: Would this improve dramatically if mandatory
regulated standards were to be implemented right now? Based
on
the analysis of the content of the annual financial and non-
financial
reports, it became evident that many public Canadian mining
and
energy companies currently seem not to be in the situation to
prepare an efficient long-term value creation report.
At the same time, as mentioned above repeatedly, it seems the
move towards regulation and standards is picking up and some
regulators are very keen on getting started.5
On one hand, having a common framework would initially help
making the reports easier to compare. However, this approach is
not without drawbacks. Even though it was found that
companies
are increasingly conforming to reporting language of existing
reporting guidelines over time, they also stated that the
disclosures
were “generic, rather than company-specific, and lack
substance’”
(Haji and Hossain, 2016). Developing this one framework that
supposedly fits the needs of all stakeholders may be a very

difficult
project given the ever-evolving changes in expectations in
society
and stakeholders (Beck et al., 2010).
There are quite a few researchers who are actually making a
good case for waiting until the standards are more refined and
better suited for a majority of companies as well as for
stakeholders
(for example Eccles et al. (2015). The hope is that, as all stake-
holders collaborate, corporate reporters become more familiar
not
only with the standards but also their individual situation, and
the
quality of reporting will therefore significantly improve over
time.
There are quite a few researchers who are actually making a
good case for waiting until the standards are more refined and
better suited for a majority of companies as well as for
stakeholders
(for example Eccles et al. (2015). The hope is that, as all stake-
holders collaborate, corporate reporters become more familiar
not
only with the standards but also their individual situation, and
the
quality of reporting will therefore significantly improve over
time.
Therefore, based on the evidence and given the apparent diffi-
culty companies seemed to be having in producing a complete
long-term report paired with the skepticism towards the
currently
available disclosure frameworks, a collaborative approach of
developing a reporting framework is suggested in the short run.
In

the long term, however, mandatory implementation of standards
and assurance is urgently recommended.
Finally, it is hoped that the research findings will contribute to
the long-term value creation reporting research literature.
Ideally,
the results of the study will lead to further research in this field
but
also to increased dialogue between all stakeholders.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.286.
References
ACCA, Apr. 2017. Insights into Integrated Reporting.
Integrated Reporting. ACCA.
Web. 20 July 2017. http://integratedreporting.org/resource/acca-
insights-into-
integrated-reporting/.
Adams, Carol A., 2017. Conceptualising the contemporary
corporate value creation
process. Account Audit. Account. J. 30 (4), 906e931. Web.
AFM, 18 Nov. 2016. Awareness of Integrated Reporting Is
Increasing, Further Prog-
ress Is Needed. November. Web. 20 July 2017.
Barako, Dulacha G., Hancock, Phil, Izan, H.Y., 2006. Factors
influencing voluntary
corporate disclosure by kenyan companies. Corp. Govern. Int.
Rev. 14 (2),
107e125. Web. 20 July 2017.

Beck, A. Cornelia, Campbell, David, Shrives, Philip J., 2010.
Content analysis in
environmental reporting research: enrichment and rehearsal of
the method in
a BritisheGerman context. Br. Account. Rev. 42 (3), 207e222
(Web).
Bewley, Kathryn, Magness, Vanessa, 2012. Environmental
disclosure in the canadian
resource industry - the impact of reporting regulations. SSRN
Journal SSRN
Electronic Journal (n. pag. Web).
Bilolo, C"eline, Müller, Ludwig, Berndt, Thomas, 28 Apr. 2014.
The Future of Inte-
grated Reporting : Analysis and Recommendations. Global
Science and Tech-
nology Forum (GSTF), Alexandria. Web. 14 June 2017.
Boerner, Hank, July Aug. 2014. Public companies RESPOND to
INVESTOR expecta-
tions, expanding voluntary disclosure on ESG issues. Corp.
Finance Rev. 32e36.
Web. 20 July 2017.
5 For example, in a joint report KPMG, Centre for Corporate
Governance in Africa,
GRI, and the UN Environment Programme evaluated 180
policies in 45 countries.
Study findings showed that, by 2013, 72% of the policies had
become mandatory
(compared with 62% of policies in 32 countries in 2010, and
58% of policies in 19
countries in 2006) (KPMG, 2016).

(2018) 350e360358
http://integratedreporting.org/resource/acca-insights-into-
integrated-reporting/
http://integratedreporting.org/resource/acca-insights-into-
integrated-reporting/
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(18)30967-3/sref2
Boesso, Giacomo, 2003. How to assess the quality of voluntary

disclosures. SSRN
Journal SSRN Electronic Journal n. pag. Web. 22 June 2015.
Boiral, O., Henri, J.-F., 2015. Is sustainability performance
Comparable? A study of
GRI reports of mining organizations. Bus. Soc. (n. pag. Web).
Bundesanzeiger, 11 Apr. 2017. CSR-richtlinie-
umsetzungsgesetz." Bundesgesetzblatt.
Web. 20 July 2017.
Burke, Jenna J., Clark, Cynthia E., 2016. The business case for
integrated reporting:
insights from leading practitioners, regulators, and academics.
Bus. Horiz. 59
(3), 273e283.
Burritt, Roger, Tingey-Holyoak, Joanne, 2012. Chapter 10:
Sustainability Accounting
Research and Professional Practice: Mind the Gap." Bridging
the Gap between
Academic Accounting Research and Professional Practice.
Institute of Chartered
Accountants in Australia, Sydney, pp. 110e119.
Campbell, David, Craven, Barrie, Shrives, Philip, 2003.
Voluntary social reporting in
three FTSE sectors: a comment on Perception and legitimacy.
Acc Auditing
Accountability J Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal 16 (4), 558e581.
About CDSB, 20 July 2017. Climate Disclosure Standards
Board (CDSB). Climate
Disclosure Standards Board. http://www.cdsb.net/.

Chan, Muiching Carina, Watson, John, Woodliff, David, 2013.
Corporate governance
quality and CSR disclosures. Journal of Business Ethics J Bus
Ethics 125 (1),
59e73.
Chauvey, Jean-No€el, Giordano-Spring, Sophie, Cho, Charles
H., Patten, Dennis M.,
2014. The normativity and legitimacy of CSR disclosure:
evidence from France.
J Bus Ethics Journal of Business Ethics 130 (4), 789e803.
Cheng, Mandy, Green, Wendy, Conradie, Pieter, Konishi,
Noriyuki, Romi, Andrea,
2014. "The international integrated reporting framework: key
issues and future
research opportunities. J Int Financ Manage Account Journal of
International
Financial Management & Accounting 25 (1), 90e119. Web. 22
June 2015.
Cho, Charles H., Michelon, Giovanna, Patten, Dennis M.,
Roberts, Robin W., 2015.
CSR disclosure: the more things change...? Account Audit.
Account. J. 28 (1),
14e35.
Churet, C"ecile, Eccles, Robert G., 08 Apr. 2014. Integrated
reporting, quality of
management, and financial performance. In: Churet, C"ecile,
Robert, G. (Eds.),
Eccles: SSRN. Web. 19 June 2017.
Conway, Mike, 2006. The subjective Precision of computers: a
methodological
comparison with human coding in content analysis. Journal.

Mass Commun. Q.
83 (1), 186e200 (Web).
Corporate Register, 2017a. Corporate Reporting Dialogue.
Corporate Reporting
Dialogue Home Comments. Web. 20 July 2017. http://
corporatereportingdialogue.com/.
Corporate Register, 2017b. FAQs." about Corporate Register -
FAQs. Web. 20 July
2017. http://www.corporateregister.com/about/.
CPA Canada, 2015. Evolving Corporate Reporting Landscape:
Integrated Reporting,
Sustainability Reporting and ESG Reporting. Web. 20 July
2017.
(CRT), Caux Round Table, 2014. Business and Public Policy
Round Table. Caux Round
Table for Moral Capitalism - 2014 Business and Public Policy
Round Table, 2014.
Web. 20 July 2017.
http://www.cauxroundtable.org/index.cfm?&menuid¼147.
Deegan, Craig, 2000. Financial Accounting Theory. McGraw-
Hill, Sydney.
Deegan, Craig, Rankin, Michaela, 1996. Do australian
companies report environ-
mental news objectively? Acc Auditing Accountability J
Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal 9 (2), 50e67.
Deloitte Nederland, 06 June 2017. Integrated Reporting: a
Driver for Integrated
Thinking j Deloitte. Web. 20 July 2017.

Deloitte United Kingdom, 01 Dec. 2016. Annual Report Insights
2016. Web. 20 July
2017.
Dennis, Philip, Connolle, Heidi, Kraut, Marla, 2015. The
efficacy of voluntary
disclosure: a study of water disclosures by mining companies
using the global
reporting initiative framework. VLex. Web. 20 July 2017.
Dilling, Petra FA., 2016. Reporting on long-term value creation
- the example of
public canadian energy and mining companies. Sustainability 8
(9), 938. Web.
Dong, Shidi, 2012. An assessment of CSR reporting practice in
China's mining and
minerals industry. UNISA. Web. 30 June 2015.
https://www.unisa.edu.au/
Global/business/centres/cags/docs/seminars/Paper%20Shidi.pdf.
Dumay, John, Bernardi, Cristiana, Guthrie, James, Demartini,
Paola, 2016. Integrated
reporting: a structured literature review. Account. Forum 40 (3),
166e185. Web.
Dumitru, Madalina, Guse, Raluca Gina, 2017. The legitimacy of
the international
integrated reporting Council. Journal of Accounting and
Management Infor-
mation Systems 16 (1), 30e58.
Eccles, Robert G., Krzus, Michael P., Ribot, Sydney, 2015.
Meaning and momentum in
the integrated reporting movement. Bank Am. J. Appl. Corp.

Finance 27 (2),
8e17.
European Commission, 2014. DISCLOSURE of NON-financial
INFORMATION by
CERTAIN LARGE COMPANIES, Directive 2003/51/EC of the
European Parliament
and of the Council of 18 June 2003. Web. 03 July 2015.
http://ec.europa.eu/
finance/accounting/non-financial_reporting/index_en.htm.
European Commission, 18 July 2017. Sustainable Finance."
European Commission -
European Commission. Web. 28 July 2017.
Evans, Elaine, Burritt, Roger, James, Guthrie, Laughlin,
Richard, Roos, GA!IGran,
Pike, Stephen, McKerchar, Margaret, Chalmers, Keryn, Wright,
Sue,
Cuganesan, Suresh, Gainsford, Len, Leung, Philomena, White,
Lee, Cooper, Barry,
Carlin, Tyrone, Stevenson, Kevin, Tingey-Holyoak, Joanne,
Magarey, Geraldine,
2012. "Chapter 10." Bridging the Gap between Academic
Accounting Research
and Professional Practice. Institute of Chartered Accountants in
Australia,
Sydney (N. pag. Print).
Fonseca, Alberto, Louise Mcallister, Mary, Fitzpatrick, Patricia,
2014. Sustainability
reporting among mining corporations: a constructive critique of
the GRI
approach. J. Clean. Prod. 84, 70e83.

Freeman, R. Edward, 2010. Strategic Management: a
Stakeholder Approach. Cam-
bridge U, Cambridge.
Frost, Geoff, Jones, Stewart, Loftus, Janice, Laan, Sandra,
2005. A survey of sus-
tainability reporting practices of australian reporting entities.
Aust. Account.
Rev. 15 (35), 89e96.
Government of Canada, 03 Mar. 2017. Foreign affairs trade and
development Can-
ada. In: Corporate Social Responsibility. Government of
Canada. Web. 20 July
2017.
GRI, 2015. SUSTAINABILITY and REPORTING TRENDS
2025. Web. 20 July 2017.
GRI, 2016. GRI Standards. GRI Standards." GRI, 2016. Web. 20
July 2017. https://
www.globalreporting.org/standards.
GRI, 2017. GRI Works with IIRC and Leading Companies to
Eliminate Reporting
Confusion. January 11 [Press release]. Retrieved April 4, 2018,
from. https://
www.globalreporting.org/information/news-and-press-
center/Pages/GRI-
works-with-IIRC-and-leading-companies-to-eliminate-
reporting-confusion.
aspx.
GRI, IIRC, 1 Mar. 2013. Deepen Cooperation to Shape the
Future of Corporate
Reporting. Global Reporting Initiative. Web. 22 Aug. 2015.

https://www.
globalreporting.org/information/news-and-press-
center/Pages/GRI-and-IIRC-
deepen-cooperation-to-shape-the-future-of-corporate-
reporting.aspx.
Guenther, Edeltraud, Hoppe, Holger, Poser, Claudia, 2006.
"Environmental corporate
social responsibility of firms in the mining and oil and gas
industries. Greener
Manag. Int. 2006 (53), 6e25.
Haji, Abdifatah Ahmed, Anifowose, Mutalib, 2016. The trend of
integrated reporting
practice in South Africa: ceremonial or substantive?
Sustainability Accounting,
Management and Policy Journal 7 (2), 190e224.
Haji, Abdifatah Ahmed, Hossain, Dewan Mahboob, 2016.
Exploring the implications
of integrated reporting on organisational reporting practice.
Qual. Res. Account.
Manag. 13 (4), 415e444.
Hao, Si, 30 Nov. 2014. Corporate integrated reporting in
Canada: are the businesses
ready? In: Hao, Si (Ed.), SSRN. N.p.. Web. 20 July 2017.
Heenetigala, Kumi, De Silva Lokuwaduge, Chitra, Armstrong,
Anona,
Ediriweera, Amali, 2015. An investigation of environmental,
social and gover-
nance measures of listed mining sector companies in Australia.
Journal of Law
and Governance 10 (4) n. pag. Web.

Hicks, Robin, 2017. Is sustainability reporting working? Eco-
Business. Eco-Business,
29 June 2017. Web. 20 July. http://www.eco-
business.com/news/is-
sustainability-reporting-working/.
Higgins, Colin, Stubbs, Wendy, Love, Tyron, 2014. Walking the
talk(s): organisa-
tional narratives of integrated reporting. Account Audit.
Account. J. 27 (7),
1090e1119.
IAS Plus, 07 Feb. 2013. IASB and IIRC Announce Cooperative
Agreement. Web. 20
July 2017.
IBFL Global, 2017. Our Activities." Promoting Responsible
Business through Collec-
tive Action n.d. Web. 20 July. http://www.iblfglobal.org/.
ICAS, 2017. Project on IR and SDGs Announced." Project on IR
and SDGs Announced j
Technical Resources j ICAS, 2 Mar. 2017. Web. 20 July.
ICMM, 2015. Member Reporting and Performance. Press
release. Retrieved April 4,
2018, from. https://www.icmm.com/en-gb/members/member-
reporting-and-
performance.
IFAC, 2015. Integrated Reporting Needs a US Strategy. Web.
20 July 2017.
International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), 2015.
Integrated Reporting." In-
tegrated Reporting. Web. 22 Aug. 2015.

http://integratedreporting.org/.
IIRC, 13 Mar. 2017. IIRC Leaders Plan Push for Integrated
Reporting in the U.S." In-
tegrated Reporting. Web. 24 June 2017.
Ioannou, Ioannis, Serafeim, George, 2017. The consequences of
mandatory corporate
sustainability reporting. SSRN Electronic Journal n. pag. Web.
20 July 2017.
IPIECA, Dec. 2016. Oil and Gas Industry Guidance on
Voluntary Sustainability
Reporting. Resources, third ed. Web. 20 July 2017.
IRRC Institute (IRRCI), and Sustainable Investments Institute,
2013. Integrated
Financial and Sustainability Reporting in the United States n.
pag. Apr. 2013.
Web. 3 July 2015. (<Integrated Financial and Sustainability
Reporting in the
United States>).
Jenkins, Heledd, Yakovleva, Natalia, 2006. Corporate social
responsibility in the
mining industry: exploring trends in social and environmental
disclosure.
J. Clean. Prod. 14 (3e4), 271e284.
Kolk, Ans, Walhain, Seb, Wateringen, Susanne Van De, 2001.
Environmental
reporting by the fortune global 250: exploring the influence of
nationality and
sector. Bus. Strat. Env. Business Strategy and the Environment
10 (1), 15e28.

KPMG International, 2013. The KPMG Survey of Corporate
Responsibility Reporting
2013 (n.d.): n. pag, vol. 30. June 2015.
Http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/
IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/corporate-
responsibility/Documents/
corporate-responsibility-reporting-survey-2013-v2.pdf.
KPMG, 2016. Mining Financial Reporting Survey 2016. KPMG.
Mining Financial
Reporting Survey 2016." KPMG. KPMG, 2016. Web. 26 June
2017. https://home.
kpmg.com/ca/en/home/insights/2016/11/mining-financial-
reporting-survey-
2016.html.
KPMG Australia, 2016. Corporate Reporting e Evolution and
Integration. KPMG.
Web. 20 July 2017.
KPMG Canada, 2014. Mining Financial Reporting Survey 2014.
Web. 23 Aug. 2015.
https://www.kpmg.com/Ca/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublic
ations/
Documents/kpmg-mining-financial-reporting-survey-2014.pdf.
Krippendorf, Klaus, 2013. Content Analysis: an Introduction to
its Methodology,
(2018) 350e360 359

http://www.cdsb.net/

http://corporatereportingdialogue.com/
http://corporatereportingdialogue.com/
http://www.corporateregister.com/about/
http://www.cauxroundtable.org/index.cfm?&menuid=147
https://www.unisa.edu.au/Global/business/centres/cags/docs/se
minars/Paper%20Shidi.pdf
https://www.unisa.edu.au/Global/business/centres/cags/docs/se
minars/Paper%20Shidi.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/finance/accounting/non-
financial_reporting/index_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/finance/accounting/non-
financial_reporting/index_en.htm

https://www.globalreporting.org/standards
https://www.globalreporting.org/standards
https://www.globalreporting.org/information/news-and-press-
center/Pages/GRI-works-with-IIRC-and-leading-companies-to-
eliminate-reporting-confusion.aspx
center/Pages/GRI-and-IIRC-deepen-cooperation-to-shape-the-
future-of-corporate-reporting.aspx

http://www.eco-business.com/news/is-sustainability-reporting-
working/
http://www.eco-business.com/news/is-sustainability-reporting-
working/
http://www.iblfglobal.org/
https://www.icmm.com/en-gb/members/member-reporting-and-
performance
https://www.icmm.com/en-gb/members/member-reporting-and-
performance
http://integratedreporting.org/

http://Http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/Artic
lesPublications/corporate-responsibility/Documents/corporate-
responsibility-reporting-survey-2013-v2.pdf
https://home.kpmg.com/ca/en/home/insights/2016/11/mining-
financial-reporting-survey-2016.html
ations/Documents/kpmg-mining-financial-reporting-survey-
2014.pdf
ations/Documents/kpmg-mining-financial-reporting-survey-
2014.pdf

third ed. Sage Publications.
Lodhia, Sumit, Hess, Nadia, 2014. Sustainability accounting and
reporting in the
mining industry: current literature and directions for future
research. J. Clean.
Prod. 84, 43e50.
Mahoney, Lois S., Thorne, Linda, 2013. The evolution in CSR
reporting: a longitu-
dinal study of canadian firms. Res. Prof. Responsib. Ethics
Account. 79e96.
Melloni, Gaia, Caglio, Ariela, Perego, Paolo, 2017. Saying more
with Less? Disclosure
conciseness, completeness and balance in integrated reports. J.
Account. Publ.
Pol. 36 (3), 220e238.
(METI). Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (Japan),
2015. Progress Report
2014-2015 on the Corporate Reporting Lab." Progress Report
2014-2015 on the
Corporate Reporting Lab/Ministry of Economy, Trade and
Industry. Web. 27
June 2017.
http://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/2015/1124_03.html.
Ministere des Affaires Etrangeres, 2012 December. The French
Legislation on Extra-
financial Reporting: Built on Consensus. Retrieved July 20,
2017, from. http://
docplayer.net/23833733-Ministere-des-affaires-etrangeres-
france.html.

Morros, Jordi, 2016. The integrated reporting: a Presentation of
the current state of
art and aspects of integrated reporting that need further
development. Intang.
Cap. 12 (1) n. pag. Web.
Murguia, Diego I., Boehling, Kathrin, 2013. "Sustainability
reporting on large-scale
mining conflicts: the case of bajo de La alumbrera, Argentina. J.
Clean. Prod.
41, 202e209.
Natural Resources Canada, Mar. 2009. Building the Canadian
Advantage: a CSR
Strategy for the International Extractive Sector. Resources
Canada. Web. 21 July
2017.
National Research Council (NRC US), 2013. Emerging
Workforce Trends in the U.S.
Energy and Mining Industries: a Call to Action. National
Academies Press,
Washington, DC, USA.
Natural Resources Canada (NRC), 11 Apr 2017a. Corporate
Social Responsibility
Research Initiative. Web. 20 July 2017.
Natural Resources Canada (NRC), 11 Apr 2017b. Corporate
Social Responsibility
(CSR) Checklist for Canadian Mining Companies Working
Abroad. MACRO-
BUTTON MTEditEquationSection2. Natural Resources Canada.
Web. 21 July
2017.

Natural Resources Canada (NRC), 11 Apr 2017c. CSR abroad e
due diligence and risk
assessment. Natural Resources Canada. Web. 20 July 2017.
Integrated Reporting, 2016. Paris EUROPLACE: Value Creation
and Corporate
Reporting e 7 Recommendations from the Paris Financial
Marketplace. Web. 22
June 2017.
PDAC, 2014. E3 Plus -Responsible Exploration." Principles and
Guidance Notes. Web.
20 July 2017.
Perez, Fabiana, Sanchez, Luis E., 2009. Assessing the evolution
of sustainability
reporting in the mining sector. Environ. Manag. 43 (6),
949e961. Web. 22 June
2015.
PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2016. It's Not Just about the
Financials: the Widening
Variety of Factors Used in Investment Decision Making. PwC.
Web. 20 July 2017.
Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), 2014.
Sustainability Accounting
Standards Board. Web. 03 July 2015. http://www.sasb.org/.
SASB and IIRC, 16 Jan. 2016. Announce Memorandum of
Understanding." Integrated
Reporting. IIRC. Web. 20 July 2017.
Schiopoiu Burlea, Adriana, Popa, Ion, 2017. Encyclopedia of
Corporate Social Re-

sponsibility. Springer, 02 June 2017. Web. 20 July.
Scott, P., 2000. The rise of reporting. Environmental Finance
22e23 (Web).
SEBI, 2017. Integrated Reporting by Listed Entities." Integrated
Reporting by Listed
Entities. Web. 20 July 2017.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), 2016. Business
and financial disclosure
required by regulation. K (concept Release), 13 Apr. 2016.
Web. 28 June 2017.
https://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/2016/33-10064.pdf.
SEC Sustainability Disclosure Search Tool, 2017. New Search
Tool Analyzes Carbon
Asset Risk. Ceres, n.d. Web. 20 July.
http://tools.ceres.org/resources/tools/sec-
sustainability-disclosure/@@ceres-search-s3.
Serafeim, George, 2015. Integrated reporting and investor
clientele. Bank Am. J.
Appl. Corp. Finance 27 (2), 34e51. Web.
Setia, Neelam, Abhayawansa, Subhash, Joshi, Mahesh, Huynh,
Anh Vu, 2015. "In-
tegrated reporting in South Africa: some initial evidence.
Sustainability Ac-
counting, Management and Policy Journal 6 (3), 397e424. Web.
Sierra-Garcia, Laura, Zorio-Grima, Ana, Garcia-Benau, Maria
A., 2013. Stakeholder
engagement, corporate social responsibility and integrated
reporting: an
exploratory study. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 22

(5), 286e304
(Web).
Simnett, Roger, Huggins, Anna Louise, 2015. Integrated
reporting and assurance:
where can research add value? Sustainability Accounting,
Management and
Policy Journal 6 (1), 29e53. Web.
Spence, C., Gray, R., 2007. Social and Environmental Reporting
and the Business
Case. Rep. Vol. No. 8. Certified Accountants Educational Trust,
London (Print.
ACCA Commissioned Research Report).
Stacchezzini, Riccardo, Melloni, Gaia, Lai, Alessandro, 2016.
Sustainability man-
agement and reporting: the role of integrated reporting for
communicating
corporate sustainability management. J. Clean. Prod. 136,
102e110. Web.
Stent, Warwick, Dowler, Tuyana, 2015. Early assessments of
the gap between in-
tegrated reporting and current corporate reporting. Meditari
Account. Res. 23
(1), 92e117. Web.
Steyn, Maxi, 2014. Organisational benefits and implementation
challenges of
mandatory integrated reporting. Sustainability Accounting,
Management and
Policy Journal 5 (4), 476e503. Web.
Stubbs, Wendy, Higgins, Colin, 2015. Stakeholders'
perspectives on the role of

regulatory reform in integrated reporting. J. Bus. Ethics (n. pag.
Web).
TCFD, June 2017. Final Report: Recommendations of the Task
Force on Climate-
related Financial Disclosures (June 2017). Web. 20 July 2017.
https://www.fsb-
tcfd.org/publications/final-recommendations-report/.
The Reporting Exchange." The Challenge. The Reporting
Exchange, n.d. 2017 Web.
20 July 2017. <https://www.reportingexchange.com/>.
Vaz, Natalia, Fernandez-Feijoo, Belen, Ruiz, Silvia, 2016.
Integrated reporting: an
international overview. Bus. Ethics Eur. Rev. 25 (4), 577e591.
Web.
Velte, Patrick, Stawinoga, Martin, 22 Feb. 2016. Integrated
reporting: the current
state of empirical research, limitations and future research
implications. In:
Velte, Patrick, Stawinoga, Martin (Eds.), SSRN. Web. 21 July
2017.
Verrecchia, Robert E., 2001. Essays on disclosure. J. Account.
Econ. 32 (1e3), 97e180.
Villiers, Charl De, Marques, Ana, 2015. Corporate social
responsibility, country-level
Predispositions, and the consequences of choosing a level of
disclosure. Ac-
count. Bus. Res. 46 (2), 167e195.
Villiers, Charl De, Leonardo, Rinaldi, Jeffrey, Unerman, 2014.
Integrated reporting:

insights, gaps and an agenda for future research. Acc Auditing
Accountability J
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 27 (7),
1042e1067. Web. 22 June
2015.
Vurro, Clodia, Perrini, Francesco, 2011. Making the most of
corporate social re-
sponsibility reporting: disclosure structure and its impact on
performance.
Corp. Govern.: The International Journal of Business in Society
Corporate
Governance 11 (4), 459e474. Web.
Wan, Ahmad, Wan, Nurul Karimah, De Brito, Marisa P.,
Tavasszy, L"or"ant A., 2016.
Sustainable supply chain management in the oil and gas
industry. Bench-
marking 23 (6), 1423e1444. ProQuest Central. Web. 13 Dec.
2016.
Wang, Zhuoming, Jahangir Ali, Muhammad, Al-Akra,
Mahmoud, 2013. Value rele-
vance of voluntary disclosure and the global financial crisis:
evidence from
China. Manag. Audit J. 28 (5), 444e468. Web. 20 July 2017.
Wilburn, Kathleen M., Wilburn, H. Ralph, 2016. The growing
importance of inte-
grated reporting for corporate social responsibility. In: Wilburn,
Kathleen M.,
Wilburn, H. Ralph (Eds.), SSRN, 01 Sept.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.
cfm?abstractid¼2801775. Web. 30 June 2017.
Zyl, Van, Anria S., 2013. The importance of stakeholder

engagement in managing
corporate reputations. International Journal of Innovation and
Sustainable
Development IJISD 7 (1), 46. Web. 22 June 2015.
(2018) 350e360360
http://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/2015/1124_03.html
http://docplayer.net/23833733-Ministere-des-affaires-
etrangeres-france.html
http://docplayer.net/23833733-Ministere-des-affaires-
etrangeres-france.html

http://www.sasb.org/
https://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/2016/33-10064.pdf
http://tools.ceres.org/resources/tools/sec-sustainability-
disclosure/@@ceres-search-s3
http://tools.ceres.org/resources/tools/sec-sustainability-

disclosure/@@ceres-search-s3
https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/publications/final-recommendations-
report/

https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/publications/final-recommendations-
report/
https://www.reportingexchange.com/

1- Introduce your environmental issue and your purpose of analysis.docx

1- Introduce your environmental issue and your purpose of analysis.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 1- Introduce your environmental issue and your purpose of analysis.docx

Similar to 1- Introduce your environmental issue and your purpose of analysis.docx (20)

More from monicafrancis71118

More from monicafrancis71118 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

1- Introduce your environmental issue and your purpose of analysis.docx