5 CONCLUSION, LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE
This then creates the problem of improper standards. One of the solutions pointed out during a discussion with an interviewee (Mister Brown) would be a collaboration between GRI and UPM (and possibly other industries within the same field), in order to produce another sector's supplement if applicable and suited to the pulp and paper industry.
This being said, I do not believe than one standard is better than another, but I would suggest keeping only a few relevant standards and principles so that conversion can be possible. Indeed, for now there are as many reporting principles as there are companies reporting without any guideline, which makes comparisons or conversions virtually impossible.
Imposing one standard may not be the best solution (since flexibility should be allowed), but giving companies the option of choosing between a few standards, as it is now being done in traditional accounting, would definitely tend to make things easier and more transparent, which should be the goal of sustainability reporting.
As most of the exploratory studies reveal, we cannot really draw clear conclusions from the results of this paper, however, we reveal possible hints for further research and hopefully pointing society into the right direction. If I can agree that some results may be disputable, my main aim is to reveal the clear interest of the stakeholders for these reports in an attempt of giving them the opportunity to have their voices heard.
Indeed, there exists numerous intermediaries between the concerned stakeholders and the people who are actually reporting, and this paper hopefully served both the company and these stakeholders.
This thesis also served as an analysis for UPM and will hopefully help facilitate the preparation of the next CR report. By gathering different opinions and summarizing them, I attempted to synthesize the core values and interests of all the interviewees,
which may help in preparing future reports or at least note the improvement of the 2010 report when compared to the 2009 report.
When looking at the theoretical contribution, this study, as one of the first in this topic, will help open a new perspective and direct further studies or researches on the matter. Indeed, as explained many times above, reporting is not something set in stone. How to report is something that varies a lot, depending on times, sector, companies, stakeholders, etc. With this thesis, we are able to assess that there is not only one truth – the situation is far away from that.
REFERENCES
Adams, C. and Frost, G. 2006. CSR reporting. Financial Management, 34-‐36.
Berens, C. 2004. “Charity calls for legislation on CSR”. Financial management, 4 (1), 4-5.
Brennan, M Niamh & Solomon, Jill 2008. Corporate governance, accountability and mechanisms of accountability: an overview. Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, 21 (7), 885-‐906.
Burritt, R. Schaltegger, S. 2010. Sustainability accounting and reporting: fad or trend? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23 (7), 829-‐846.
Creyer, E. H., & Ross, W. T. 1997. The influence of firm behavior of purchase motive: Do consumers really care about business ethics? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14, 421–432.
Den Hond F., G. A. de Bakker F, Neergaard P. 2007. Managing corporate social responsibility in action: talking, doing and measuring. Hampshire: Ashgate.
Eisenhardt, Kathleen M., 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research.
Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-‐550.
Esther M.J. S. & Joop R. 2006. Making sense of corporate social responsibility in international business: experiences from Shell. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15 (4), 365-‐379.
Fassin Y., 2009. The stakeholder model refined. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 113-‐135.
Frederick William C. 1994. "From CSR1 to CSR" : The Maturing of Business-‐and-‐
Society Thought. Business & Society, 33(2), 150-‐164.
Freeman R. E. 1984. The stakeholder concept and strategic management.
Strategic management: a stakeholder approach (p. 46). Boston: Pitman Publishing.
Gillis, T. & Spring, N. 2001. Doing good is good for business. Communication World, 18 (6), 23-‐27.
Gleadle, P. & Haslam, C. 2010. An exploratory study of an early stage R&D-‐
intensive firm under financialization. Accounting Forum ,34(1), 54 – 65.
Hanke, T., Stark, W. 2009. Strategy Development: Conceptual Framework on Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 507–516.
Kasanen, E., Lukka, K. and Siitonen, A. 1993. The constructive approach in management accounting research. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 5, 243–264.
Kihn, Lili-‐Anne & Näsi, Salme 2010. Research Strategic Analysis of the Finnish Doctoral Dissertations in Management Accounting from 1990 to 2009. Finnish Journal of Business Economics, 1, 42-‐86.
Lehtonen, J. 2003. Yhteisöviestinnän perusteet -‐verkko-‐oppimateriaali.
Jyväskylän yliopisto, viestintätieteiden laitos. Retrieved on the 5th of December 2010 at http://www.viesti.jyu.fi/oppimateriaalit/yviperust/.
Malmi, Teemu & Granlund, Markus, 2009. In Search of Management Accounting Theory. European Accounting Review, 18 (3), 597–620
Margolis, J.D. and Walsh, J.P. 2003. Misery loves companies: rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48 (2), 268-‐305.
Mitchell R. K., Agle B. & Wood D., 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts.
Academy of Management Review, 22 (4): 853-‐886.
Orij, René 2010. Corporate social disclosures in the context of national cultures and stakeholder theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23 (7), 868-‐889.
Patten, Dennis 1992. Intra-‐industry environmental disclosures in response to the Alaskan oil spill: A note on legitimacy theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society ,17(5), 471-‐475.
Salzmann, O., Ionescu-‐somers A., Steger U. 2005. The Business Case for Corporate Sustainability: Literature Review and Research Options. European Management Journal,23(1), 27-‐35.
Savage G. T., Nix T. W., Whitehead C. J. & Blair J.D., 1991. Strategies for assessing and managing stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 61-‐75.
Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Yoon, Y., Gürhan-‐Canli Z., Schwarz, N. 2006. The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Activities on Companies With Bad Reputations. Journal of consumer psychology, 16(4), 377–390.
Internet sources
ACCA website, 2011.
http://www.accaglobal.com/general/activities/sustainability/acca/accounting/
Accessed on the 7th of February 2011.
Accounting for Sustainability 2011.
http://www.accountingforsustainability.org/output/page186.asp/ Accessed on the 7th of February 2011.
The Global Reporting Initiative, 2010. http://www.globalreporting.org/ Accessed on the 3 of October 2010.
Shell, 2011. http://www.shell.com.ng/home/content/nga/aboutshell/media_centre/
news_and_media_releases/2009/hivaids_award.html/ Accessed on the 16 of March 2011.
UPM Kymmene Oyj, 2010. http://www.upm.com/en/about_upm/ Accessed on the 2nd of October 2010.
UPM ProFi, 2010. http://www.upmprofi.com/upm/internet/upm_profi.nsf/sp2?open&
cid=material/ Accessed on the 4th of March 2011.
UPM Tracing Russian Wood, 2011. http://w3.upm-kymmene.com/for/internet/
upm_tracing_russia_wood.nsf/sp?Open&cid=ThirdLink/ Accessed on the 4th of March 2011.
The Carbon Disclosure Project, 2011. https://www.cdproject.net/en-US/Pages /HomePage.aspx Accessed on the 1st of March 2011.
Reports
Craib Design & Communications and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2010. CSR Trends 2010, 20.
UPM Annual report 2009
IBM Corporate Sustainability Report 2009
Global Reporting Initiative, Sustainability Reporting Guidelines 2006.
Attachment 1: Outline of the interview questions
-‐ What is your position (title, time in the position, time in the company) -‐ how familiar with CSR are you?
-‐ Do you see a use in CSR report in general?/What use do you see in a CSR report?
-‐ How many CSR reports are you reading (yearly/monthly)?
-‐ Are UPM CSR reports read to your opinion?
-‐ By whom?
-‐ How heavily?
-‐ Is there feedback?
-‐ Are you familiar with GRI? (If not, will follow a short description of it)
-‐ Do you feel that GRI would bring more value to UPM's report? Why? Why not?
-‐ Which part of the actual report is the more valuable to your stakeholders?
-‐ What is missing or could be made better from the current reports?
-‐ Free comments about CSR reports in general
Attachment 2: Completed materiality grid