Journal of Cleaner Production

Manuscript Draft
Manuscript Number: JCLEPRO-D-15-00404
Title: A fuzzy AHP method to support sustainability reporting: an application to the water technology
industry
Article Type: Original Research Paper
Abstract: Sustainability reporting encourages companies to set goals and measure their performance in
the sustainability of operations concerning economic, environmental and social impacts. However not
all sustainability issues have the same relevance for every organization. Company reporting must cover
the 'material' aspects of sustainability, meaning the areas that can be positively or negatively affected
by their activities. Reporting on the material aspects of sustainability provides greater transparency for
stakeholders, and achieves greater accountability of the companies for their actions and effects.
This paper proposes a 'fuzzy analytic hierarchy process' (fuzzy AHP) method to support the
identification and prioritization of the company's material sustainability aspects. Based on the Global
Reporting Initiative (GRI) G4 Guidelines, the method evaluates the significance of GRI 'Aspects' and
'Indicators' for reporting the company's sustainability performance. The fuzzy AHP method prioritizes
the aspects and indicators for inclusion in the report, thus assisting company managers to disclose
results effectively, while also managing the time and financial constraints that can restrict their efforts
in sustainability reporting. To illustrate the method, the paper presents a case study of an Italian SME
active in the water technology industry.

Graphical Abstract (for review)

Environmental
Grievance
Mechanisms 5%
Supplier
Environmental 10%
Assessment

Materials
Energy

10%

5%

Water

10%

Overall 11%

Transport

5% Biodiversity

10%

7%
4%

Compliance

Emissions

13%
10%

Effluents and Waste

Products and Services

Materiality of GRI aspects under the environmental category

Highlights (for review)

A fuzzy AHP method to prioritize materiality of sustainability aspects and indicators

The proposed method is based on the G4 GRI Guidelines

The method is especially useful for supporting SMEs in sustainability reporting

Title page

A fuzzy AHP method to support sustainability reporting: an application to the water

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

technology industry
Armando Calabrese1, Roberta Costa1*, Nathan Levialdi1, Tamara Menichini1
1 Department of Enterprise Engineering, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Italy

* corresponding author: Roberta Costa

Address: University of Rome Tor Vergata, Department of Enterprise Engineering, Via del
Politecnico 1, 00133 Rome, Italy.
tel.: 0039 06 72597799
fax.: 0039 06 72597951
e-mail: roberta.costa@uniroma2.it

Manuscript
Click here to view linked References

A fuzzy AHP method to support sustainability reporting: an application to the water

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

technology industry

Abstract
Sustainability reporting encourages companies to set goals and measure their performance in
the sustainability of operations concerning economic, environmental and social impacts.
However not all sustainability issues have the same relevance for every organization.

Company reporting must cover the material aspects of sustainability, meaning the areas that
can be positively or negatively affected by their activities. Reporting on the material aspects
of sustainability provides greater transparency for stakeholders, and achieves greater
accountability of the companies for their actions and effects.
This paper proposes a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (fuzzy AHP) method to support the
identification and prioritization of the companys material sustainability aspects. Based on the
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) G4 Guidelines, the method evaluates the significance of
GRI Aspects and Indicators for reporting the companys sustainability performance. The
fuzzy AHP method prioritizes the aspects and indicators for inclusion in the report, thus
assisting company managers to disclose results effectively, while also managing the time and
financial constraints that can restrict their efforts in sustainability reporting. To illustrate the
method, the paper presents a case study of an Italian SME active in the water technology
industry.

Keywords: sustainability reporting; Global Reporting Initiative (GRI); fuzzy Analytic

Hierarchy Process (AHP); small and medium enterprises (SMEs)

1. Introduction
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

Company sustainability depends on awareness of corporate responsibilities. Sustainable

companies interact with society, the economy and environment, considering the needs of both
present and future stakeholders, working towards goals of sustainable development
(Robinson, 2004). Sustainability reporting, or the practice of measuring and disclosing the
companys sustainability performance, ensures accountability to stakeholders and supports
the company in managing change towards operation in a more sustainable manner
(Bebbington, 2001; GRI, 2013a, 2013b). Transparent communication improves the credibility
of the companys environmental and social commitments and favours its long-term processes
of value creation (Birth et al., 2008; Schmeltz, 2014).
However differing organizational characteristics, such as the business model, size, ownership
and social and cultural context, affect both company impacts and the stakeholder expectations
concerning sustainability (Porter and Kramer, 2006). Because of this, not all aspects of
sustainability have the same relevance for every company (GRI, 2013a, 2013b; ISO, 2010).
For a company to be truly accountable to stakeholders, it is crucial that it identify which
sustainability-related content to disclose, and identify the appropriate levels of detail for
reporting the information (Kolk, 2008). The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Sustainability
Reporting Guidelines, which is the best known framework for sustainability reporting,
stresses the importance of focusing on the material aspects of sustainability (Marimon et al.,
2012). The material sustainability aspects are those that significantly reflect the company
economic, environmental and social impacts (GRI, 2013b). For more transparent and
coherent disclosure of its sustainability performance, the company must identify and
prioritize those aspects and indicators that are material (GRI, 2013a, 2013b). Ideally,
companies would be able to draw on quantitative methods to assess the relative material
importance of sustainability aspects and indicators of multidimensional performance, and
2

thus plan and act accordingly (Lozano, 2013; Lozano and Huising, 2011). Few scholars have
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

inquired into potential quantitative methods for assessing the relative importance of the
different aspects of sustainability (Arena and Azzone, 2012; Hsu et al., 2013; Krajnc and
Glavic, 2005;). To respond to the methodological scarcity, the current paper proposes, applies
and examines a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (fuzzy AHP) method, involving multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) and fuzzy linguistic variables, to support companies in
defining the content of their sustainability report. The method offers advantages in terms of
accuracy, thoroughness and efficiency of reporting, as well as generalizability among
companies. The methodological integration of fuzzy variables serves to manage the
ambiguity and uncertainty of subjective judgments, typical in evaluating the materiality of
the different sustainability issues (Chen and Fan, 2011). The method is based on the G4 GRI
Guidelines (GRI, 2013a, 2013b), currently in world-wide use. It allows the company to
determine the relative importance and utility of the different GRI Aspects and Indicators
in assessing sustainability performance in environmental, economic and social areas.
Application of the fuzzy AHP method supports companies in the process of defining the
material content for sustainability reporting, permitting them to identify those GRI aspects
and indicators that better address their key sustainability concerns. The method should be
especially useful to SMEs, which often face time and financial constraints as they engage in
sustainability reporting (Baumann-Pauly et al., 2013), but supports all companies that wish to
make reports more relevant, more credible and more user-friendly (GRI, 2013a, p. 3).
The next section of the paper provides a brief review of the literature on sustainability
reporting and the GRI Guidelines. Section 3 reviews the theory of the fuzzy AHP approach
and develops the proposed method. Section 4 presents an application of the method to the
case of an Italian SME and Section 5 illustrates its usefulness as a tool to support
sustainability reporting. Finally, Section 6 summarizes and concludes the study.
3

2. Literature review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

2.1 Sustainability reporting

Sustainability reporting is the practice of measuring, disclosing, and being accountable to
internal and external stakeholders for organizational performance, towards the goal of
sustainable development (GRI, 2006, p. 3). Sustainability reporting has been the subject of
growing attention from policy makers, market regulators, stakeholders, managers and
academics, and thus the practice of reporting has increased significantly over the last two
decades (GRI, 2013c). The literature offers different theoretical and empirical explanations
concerning the motivations and drivers for sustainability reporting (Burritt and Schaltegger,
2010; Herzig and Schaltegger, 2011). Currently, the main approaches to the issue are
impression management theory, signaling theory and legitimacy theory(Dawkins and
Ngunjiri, 2008). In impression management theory, sustainability reporting is viewed as a
way to manage stakeholder perceptions, while under signaling theory, the company uses
reporting to communicate company values (Hooghiemstra, 2000; Mahoney et al., 2013).
Legitimacy theory instead presents reporting as a way to face the increasing demands,
arriving from various actors, that companies must manage their impacts (Deegan, 2002).
Through sustainability reports, stakeholders can establish if a companys activities are in line
with their values and expectations, and consequently approve or disapprove of the actions.
Appropriate reporting enhances company-stakeholder relationships (Calabrese et al., 2013b)
and so contributes to processes for the creation of shared value, connecting society with
economic progress (Porter and Kramer, 2011).
In spite of the advantages, some companies can be inhibited from sustainability reporting due
to the added resources required for conforming to accountability procedures, both in finances
and the acquisition and training of competencies (Kolk, 2005). The companys organizational
characteristics, such as its business model, cultural operating contexts, size and ownership,
4

will affect sustainability practices and reporting (Adams, 2002; Belal and Copper, 2011;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

Gamerschlag et al., 2011; Hahn and Kuhnen, 2013; Lepoutre and Heene, 2006; Meyskens
and Paul, 2010). A study by Baumann-Pauly, Wickert, Spence and Scherer (2013) reveals a
sustainability reporting gap relative to company size: large companies adopt strong
reporting, aiming to improve their image with the general public; SMEs tend to concentrate
their efforts at communication on their most important stakeholders, particularly employees,
adopting only informal mechanisms. For SMEs, the reporting gap derives primarily from a
lack of time and the specialized knowledge and financial resources necessary for appropriate
documentation of sustainability performance. The reporting gap both contributes to and
derives from the low visibility of smaller companies.
SMEs are thus reluctant to adopt the existing international frameworks of standards for
sustainability practice and reporting (Kolk, 2005). Sustainability standards are a form of
voluntary accreditation and self-regulation, aimed at encouraging companies to adopt
systematic approaches to stakeholder engagement in sustainability practice, and at improving
comparability in performance (Ligteringen and Zadek, 2005). Koerber (2010) classifies
sustainability standards as: Normative Frameworks, Management Systems, and Process
Guidelines. Normative Frameworks regulate performance and goals (e.g. OECD Guidelines
for Multinational Enterprises). Management Systems regulate the integration of social and
environmental issues with the company operations (e.g. Social Accountability SA8000).
Process Guidelines offer guidance on measurement, communication and assurance (e.g. GRI
Reporting Framework).
The method proposed in the current paper is based on the GRI Guidelines, which are the most
widely used framework for voluntary sustainability reporting (Marimon et al., 2012). The
following subsections provide a brief review of the G4 GRI Guidelines (GRI, 2013a, 2013b)

and some of the advantages of this standard. Subsequently, we examine how their
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

implementation can be supported by a fuzzy AHP method.

2.2 GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines
The GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines combine reporting of financial and nonfinancial information in a standardized framework, resulting in full characterization of the
companys sustainability performance in the economic, environmental and social dimensions
(GRI, 2013a, 2013b).
The GRI Guidelines are appropriate for sustainability reporting regardless of company
dimension or industrial sector (Bouten et al., 2011). The guidelines offer companies a series
of potential advantages: they permit standardization in the contents of reporting and the
processes of implementation; they can improve stakeholder relationships; they permit
comparison to the practices and performance of other organizations (Fortanier et al., 2011;
Koerber, 2010; Schadewitz and Niskala, 2010). The guidelines are developed by multistakeholder technical working groups, with the aim of obtaining flexibility and global
relevance. The guidelines are structured to elicit company reporting on both the positive and
negative effects of their activities, ensuring stakeholders a reasonable and balanced
representation of the sustainability practices and performance. Company use of the guidelines
enhances accountability, by taking into account the expectations and viewpoints of different
types of stakeholders about engagements in sustainability (Brown et al, 2009).
GRI Guidelines analyze sustainability issues not only in terms of negative impact reduction,
but also in terms of wealth creation and distribution. This characteristic ensures that
companies address eco-efficiency (environmental impact) and eco-justice (wealth creation
and distribution) issues, and consider future patterns of development (Bebbington, 2001).
The current paper applies the most recent generation of GRI Guidelines, known as G4
(GRI, 2013a, 2013b).
6

2.2.1 The G4 framework

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

G4 considers sustainability performance under a framework of three Categories:

Economic, Environmental, Social. The Social Category is further divided into four SubCategories: Labor Practices and Decent Work, Human Rights, Society, and Product
Responsibility. The actual description of sustainability under the Categories and SubCategories is accomplished by applying specific Aspects and Indicators (Table 1).
-------------------------------------------INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE
------------------------------------------2.2.2 Materiality in sustainability reporting
The G4 Guidelines stress the importance of providing reports that are material to the
companys business and stakeholders, meaning centered on matters that are really critical in
order to achieve the organizations goals and manage its impact on society (GRI, 2013a, p.
3). To accomplish this, the reports must deal with the specific GRI aspects and indicators that
are in turn material. An aspect is material if it has significant relevance to the companys
economic, environmental and social impacts; an aspect is immaterial if it is not sufficiently
relevant (GRI, 2013a, 2013b). In addition, an aspect is deemed not applicable when it is
completely unsuitable for describing the areas of company sustainability performance. In this
case it is excluded from the sustainability report, and the reasons for this decision must be
explained.
The objective of the so-called Materiality Principle is to provide stakeholders with relevant,
complete and coherent information for the assessment of company performance. For this, the
G4 reporting guidelines recommend that companies prioritize the GRI aspects in terms of
their relative significance (materiality) in revealing sustainability performance. The
materiality principle must then also be applied to the indicators for the GRI aspects that are
7

more significant: first the company must select the indicators that are material to measuring
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

the sustainability performance; second, the indicators must be prioritized. Finally, the report
should offer appropriate levels of detail, meaning combinations of indicators, quantitative
measures and narrative information suitable to the significance of each aspect judged as
material.
In the next section we propose a fuzzy AHP method to support companies in identifying the
GRI aspects and indicators that are more significant to disclosing the companys
sustainability performance.

3. The fuzzy AHP method for decisions in sustainability reporting

The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is a structured technique for organizing and analyzing
complex decisions. It provides a comprehensive framework for structuring a decision-making
problem: representing and quantifying its elements, relating these elements to an overall goal.
AHP decomposes the overall problem into a hierarchy of readily comprehended subproblems and further items. The procedure permits the inclusion of both quantitative and
qualitative criteria in the evaluation process.
In this paper we adopt the fuzzy extension of classic AHP, an approach that deals with the
vagueness or fuzziness of the linguistic and subjective judgments typically formulated in
decision-making processes (Chen and Fan, 2011). In sustainability reporting, such fuzziness
is characteristic of the stage in which company decision-makers must judge the GRI aspects
and indicators material to the disclosure of sustainability performance. We expect the fuzzy
AHP method to assist in the assessment of the relative significance of the GRI aspects and
indicators.
In the following subsections we explain fuzzy AHP in more detail and develop the method
for application to the problem at hand.
8

3.1 AHP and fuzzy AHP

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

AHP is a decision-making approach used to arrive at solutions to complex multiple-criteria

problems involving qualitative judgements (Saaty, 1980). The process decomposes the
decision-making process into constituent parts, progressing from the general to the specific.
The problem is structured in hierarchical form, with the overall decision-making goal at the
top, above the lower levels of criteria and alternatives. Each criterion or sub-criterion can be
further divided into appropriate levels of detail. Finally, the decision alternatives or selection
choices are laid down at the last level of the hierarchy.
Decision-makers decompose their problem into the hierarchy, and then progressively judge
the importance of each criterion in paired comparisons. The judgement is performed from the
point of view of the next criterion up. The judgements score the decision alternatives, one
relative to another. The process includes consideration of subjective opinions, gathered by
direct questioning or questionnaires that reveal the necessary decision-making information
and the priority weighting of the elements. The AHP process thus captures both subjective
and objective criteria in decision-making, while providing an instrument for checking the
coherence of the decision-makers evaluations (Saaty, 1980).
Nevertheless AHP does not completely capture the peculiarities of qualitative assessment
because its discrete scale cannot reflect the true character of human thinking (Huang et al.,
2008). Given that expert preferences are almost universally affected by uncertainty and
imprecision, it is unrealistic to use definite and precise numbers to represent the entailing
linguistic judgments (Kwong and Bai, 2003). The fuzzy AHP method provides a means to
deal with this ambiguity, by integrating triangular fuzzy numbers (TFNs) and classic AHP
in a single process. The fuzzy AHP method is thus better suited to solving decision-making
problems concerning subjective evaluations.

Fuzzy AHP converts linguistic judgments into TFNs, organized in fuzzy pair-wise
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

comparison matrices. Many methods of comparison matrices have been introduced (e.g.
Chang, 1996; Csutora and Buckley, 2001), to obtain the relative weights of the decision items
(criteria, subcriteria and alternatives). Among others methods, the fuzzy extension of AHP
proposed by Chang (1996) is well known and widely applied. However Wang et al. (2008)
demonstrate that it can lead to incorrect prioritization, through assigning zero weights to
some decision items and thus excluding them from the analysis. To avoid this shortcoming
we adopt a fuzzy AHP approach proposed by Calabrese et al. (2013a), which resolves the
zero weight issue, taking into account Wang et al.s (2008) criticisms of Changs method and
the consistency test of Kwong and Bay (2003). The following section details how the general
fuzzy AHP method can be applied to the particular problem of judging the materiality of GRI
aspects and indicators.
3.2 The hierarchical structure for identifying materiality
As described, fuzzy AHP structures complex decisions as a hierarchy, from the overall
objective at the top to criteria, subcriteria, and downwards to lower levels. Moreover the
hierarchical structure of fuzzy AHP remains flexible, permitting different levels of detail to
reflect the peculiarities of each decision problem.
In this case, to take account of the multi-dimensional nature of company sustainability
performance (economic, environmental and social dimensions), we propose a model
consisting of three hierarchical structures of criteria and subcriteria. The GRI sub-categories,
aspects and indicators are organized in three separate hierarchies, in keeping with the three
sustainability categories of the G4 Guidelines. At the top level of the hierarchical structures is
the goal of each analysis. Each goal is formulated in terms of deciding the more significant or
material aspects and indicators, relevant to the three dimensions of sustainability
(economic, environmental, social) as identified in the GRI guidelines:
10


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

Economic Goal The goal of the economic hierarchy is to assess the level of
significance of the GRI aspects and indicators of the economic category, deciding
those aspects that best reflect the companys economic impacts and the indicators that
best allow assessment of its economic sustainability performance. Economic impacts
can be direct and indirect. The direct ones result from company economic activities,
transactions and interactions in specific markets. Indirect impacts are those that have
an indirect effect on stakeholders, such as investments that are realized for broader
public benefit (GRI, 2013a, 2013b);

Environmental Goal The goal of the environmental hierarchy is to assess the level
of significance of the GRI aspects and indicators of the environmental category,
deciding those aspects that best reflect the companys environmental impacts and the
indicators that allow assessment of its environmental sustainability performance. The
environmental impacts refer to those caused by the inputs and the outputs of company
processes: energy and water consumption, gas emissions, biodiversity protection,
waste recycling, sustainability in transport, and disposal of products and materials
(GRI, 2013a, 2013b);

Social Goal The goal of the social hierarchy is to assess the level of significance of
the GRI aspects and indicators of the social category, deciding those aspects that best
reflect the companys social impacts and the indicators that allow assessment of its
social sustainability performance. Social impacts concern the effects of company
activities on social systems: work practices, respect of human rights, public policy,
consumer health and safety protection (GRI, 2013a, 2013b).

Under each goal are structured the related GRI aspects, with the next level down being the
GRI indicators (Figures 1, 2, 3). The social hierarchical structure presents a further level of
criteria corresponding to the GRI Social Sub-Categories.
11

--------------------------------------------------1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

INSERT FIGURES 1, 2, 3 ABOUT HERE

--------------------------------------------------3.3 Conversion of decision-maker judgments to relative weights
Given the proposed hierarchical structures (Figures 1, 2, 3), decision-makers can now be
asked to compare the relevance of GRI aspects and indicators, in pair-wise comparisons,
under the economic, environmental and social goals of the analysis.
The decision-makers judge the relative importance of the items in a pair by means of
linguistic terms: equally, weakly more, moderately more, strongly more or extremely
more important. The linguistic judgments are then converted into triangular fuzzy numbers
(TFNs) using the scale shown in Table 2.
--------------------------------------------------INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE
--------------------------------------------------The TFNs are organized in fuzzy comparison matrices (1):

(1,1,1)
(l , m , u )
A aij
21 21 21
n n

(ln1, mn1, un1 )

(l12 , m12 , u12 )

(1,1,1)
(ln 2 , mn 2 , un 2 )

(l1n , m1n , u1n )

(l2n , m2n , u2n )

(1,1,1)

(1)

where
1 1 1
aij (lij , mij , uij ) (a ji )1
,
,
u ji m ji l ji

, i, j 1,...n; i j

(2)

is a TFN that represents the linguistic judgment for the items i with respect to j performed
from the perspective of the next criterion up. A is a square, symmetrical matrix.

12

The fuzzy AHP method proposed by Calabrese et al. (2013a) is then applied to each
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

comparison matrix (steps 1 to 4, below), thus identifying the relative weights of the GRI
aspects and indicators, without the problem of zero weights.
Step 1. Convert the fuzzy comparison matrix (1) into a crisp comparison matrix using the
centroid defuzzification method called center of gravity (Yager, 1981). In the case of TFNs
the translating formula is (Wang and Elhang, 2007):
aij (aij )

lij mij uij

, i, j 1,..., n
3

(3)

Step 2. Analyze the consistency of the comparison matrix by calculating the consistency
index (CI) and the consistency ratio (CR):

CI

(max n)
n 1

CR CI RI n 100%

(4)

(5)

where max is the largest eigenvalue of the comparison matrix, n is the dimension of the
matrix and RI(n) is a random index depending on n as shown in Table 3.
--------------------------------------------------INSERT TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE
--------------------------------------------------Usually, the consistency of the matrix is acceptable only if CR (5) is less than 10% (Forman,
1990). However the threshold of 10% can be reduced or increased depending on the tolerance
of the decision-makers (Alonso and Lamata, 2006). If a matrix results as inconsistent, new
pair-wise comparison judgments must be obtained, for preparation of a new pair-wise fuzzy
comparison matrix and a repeat analysis. The matrix review must be continued until
consistency is obtained.

13

Step 3. Determine the local priority weight of each criterion, sub-criterion and alternative by
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

summing up each row of the consistent fuzzy comparison matrix A (6) and then normalizing
the row sums to obtain Si by means of (7).
n

j 1

j 1

j 1

j 1

RSi aij ( lij , mij , uij ), i 1,..., n

n
n
n

lij
mij
uij

RSi
j 1
j 1
j 1
(l , m , u ),
Si

,
,
n
n
n n
n
n
n
n
i i i
n
l

u
m
u

l
kj kj ij
kj
RS j ij
j 1
k 1, k i j 1
j 1
j 1 k 1,k i j 1 k 1, j 1

(6)

i 1,..., n

(7)

Finally, the crisp weights are calculated converting fuzzy weights as follows:

l mi ui
wi Si ( Si ) i
, i 1,..., n
3

(8)

Via normalization, the normalized crisp weight vector is:

W (w1', w2',..., wn')

(9)

Step 4. Aggregate local priority weights into global priorities: the rank of each sub-criterion
is calculated by multiplying its local weight with the corresponding local weights of
subcriteria and criteria along the hierarchy. The global weights of criteria in the upper level
hierarchy are equivalent to the local weights.
In case of participation by two or more decision-makers, for each hierarchical level the
evaluating process results in different comparison matrices, one for each decision-maker.
Before applying the steps 1-4, it is then necessary to synthesize these in a single aggregate
matrix, as follows (Chang, 1996; Wang and Elhag, 2007):
(k )
(k )
(k )
(k )
If aij (lij , mij , uij )

(10)

is the triangular fuzzy number which expresses the linguistic judgment provided by the k-th
decision-maker ( k 1,..., m ) and
14

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

1
1
1
(aij (k ) )1
,
,
uij (k ) mij ( k ) lij (k )

is the reciprocal of aij

(k )

(11)

. The average judgment, according to the fuzzy addition operation

for TFNs (Kaufmann and Gupta, 1991) is:

aij

m
1 m (k ) 1 m (k ) 1 m
(k ) 1
(k )
aij lij , mij , uij , i, j 1,..., n; j i
m k 1
m k 1
m k 1
m k 1

(12)

The previous aggregate matrix is then utilized as input in the steps 1-4.

4. A case study of an Italian SME

In this paper we apply the proposed fuzzy AHP method to the case of ACMO Group SpA, an
Italian SME operating in design, manufacturing and consulting for water projects and
hydraulic components. ACMO is certificated under ISO 14001:2000 (Environmental
Management System) and ISO 9001:2008 (Quality Management Systems), indicating that the
company is committed to corporate responsibility and deeply oriented towards its
stakeholders. The direction of ACMO is interested in implementing appropriate reporting to
further improve company accountability for performance in sustainability, but has never
prepared a sustainability report, making this an ideal case to illustrate the proposed method.
4.1 Implementing the fuzzy AHP method
The process of defining the sustainability report content is carried out through face-to-face
interviews with the expert decision-makers of the concerned company, particularly the top
managers (GRI, 2013). When the company is an SME, it is especially important to engage the
CEO in planning the content, because of his or her deep understanding of the companys
organizational structure, processes and resources. In the case of ACMO, the interviews were
conducted with the company owner, who is also CEO.

15

To begin the AHP procedure, the interviewee(s) must first be asked to judge the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

applicability of all the GRI aspects and indicators (see Table 1), excluding those not
suitable to the assessment of sustainability performance for that company. The reasons for the
exclusions must later be explained in the sustainability report. In this case study, the company
CEO judged all GRI aspects and indicators as applicable.
Then, applying the three hierarchies (Figures 1, 2, 3), the interviewee is asked to express the
relative material importance of the GRI aspects by means of pair-wise comparisons, under
the different sustainability dimensions of the analysis: the economic, environmental
categories and social subcategories. Since the social hierarchy (Figure 3) includes the extra
level of the social subcategories, for this hierarchy it is first necessary to compare the
subcategories under the perspective of the broad social category before arriving at the still
lower level of the GRI aspects.
For brevity, Table 4 shows only the example of answers from ACMOs CEO about the
relative importance of the GRI aspects under the Environmental category, where the GRI
aspect of Water is one of the terms of comparison. In the full implementation of the method,
all the material GRI aspects must be evaluated in pair-wise comparisons: in the ACMO case
there are a total of 12 material GRI aspects (Table 1) and 66 pair-wise comparisons. As an
illustrative example, the first comparison of Table 4 is between the GRI aspects Water and
Materials, applying the following question:
<To what extent is the GRI Aspect Water more (or less) significant than the GRI Aspect
Materials, in reflecting the environmental impact of the companys activities?>
-----------------------------------------------------

INSERT TABLE 4 ABOUT HERE

-----------------------------------------------------

The respondent expresses the relative importance by means of linguistic terms (Table 4).

16

Once the GRI aspects are examined, the analysis proceeds with the evaluation of the relative
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

importance of the GRI indicators. As an example, Table 5 shows the comparison between the
GRI indicators under the Water aspect. The first comparison is between the GRI indicators
G4-EN8 (total water withdrawal by source) and G4-EN9 (water sources significantly affected
by withdrawal of water), applying the following question:
< In the perspective of the GRI Aspect Water, to what extent is the indicator G4-EN8 more
(or less) significant than the indicator G4-EN9 in describing, monitoring and analyzing the
environmental sustainability performance of the company?>
For brevity we again present only one table describing the comparison of the GRI indicators,
however the fuzzy AHP method requires elaboration of a comparison table for each of the
material GRI aspects considered (Table 1). In the ACMO case study, all GRI Aspects were
deemed applicable and 46 tables were necessary.
-----------------------------------------------------

INSERT TABLE 5 ABOUT HERE

-----------------------------------------------------

As an example of collecting and elaborating the data, Table 6 shows the conversion of the
Table 5 linguistic judgments into TFNs, applying the conversion scale in Table 2.
-----------------------------------------------------

INSERT TABLE 6 ABOUT HERE

-----------------------------------------------------

The fuzzy AHP method then continues, step by step.

Step 1. Using formula (3) the fuzzy comparison matrix (Table 6) is converted into a crisp
comparison matrix (Table 7).
-----------------------------------------------------

INSERT TABLE 7 ABOUT HERE

-----------------------------------------------------

17

Step 2. The consistency of the crisp matrix is analyzed: in this example the matrix (Table 7)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

is consistent with CI=0.034 and CR=0.06.

Step 3. The row sum (6) and the normalized row sum (7) are calculated for each GRI
indicator associated with a row of Table 7. In particular, the value of the row sum for the
indicator G4-EN8 is calculated using (6) as follows:

RS1 (1,1,1) (1,1.5,2) (0.33,0.4,0.5) (2.33,2.9,3.5)

The row sum values for the GRI indicators belonging to Water are summarized in Table 8.
-----------------------------------------------------

INSERT TABLE 8 ABOUT HERE

---------------------------------------------

The normalized row sum value for the indicator G4-EN8 is calculated utilizing (7) as follows:
n
n
n

l
m
uij

ij
ij

RS 1
j 1
j 1
j 1
S1

,
,
n n
n
n
n
n
n l n n u
mkj uij lkj
RS j
ij
kj
k 1, k i j 1
k 1, j 1
j 1
k 1, k i j 1
j 1
j 1

2.33 2.9
3.5

,
,

11.83 10.97 10.33

(0.1969, 0.2644, 0.3388)

The normalized row sum values for GRI indicators under Water are summarized in Table 9.
------------------------------------------------------

INSERT TABLE 9 ABOUT HERE

-----------------------------------------------------

Then crisp weights are calculated using (8), and via normalization, the relative weights for
the GRI Indicators belonging to Water are:

The same procedure must be applied to all comparison matrices relative to the GRI aspects of
the environmental category (see Figure 2).
Step 4. The overall results (global weights) of the Environmental Category (Table 10) are
obtained by multiplying the relative weights of the GRI aspects and indicators along the
18

hierarchy. For example, the global weight of G4-EN8 (2.6%) is obtained from multiplying
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

the global weight of the Water aspect (10%) by the local weight of G4-EN8 (26%).
-----------------------------------------------------

INSERT TABLE 10 ABOUT HERE

-----------------------------------------------------

To complete the case study, the fuzzy AHP method is repeated for the GRI Economic and
Social categories. The overall results are shown in the Appendix, Tables A.1, A.2, A.3.
4.2 Results
For brevity, we will discuss the results obtained for only one of the three categories of GRI
sustainability reporting aspects. Figure 4 presents the global weights calculated for the
environmental aspects (Table 10), for ACMO SpA. They express the relative materiality of
the different GRI aspect in assessing the companys sustainability performance in the
environmental area. In this case, the most significant (material) GRI aspects are Effluents
and Waste (13%) and Overall (11%). Slightly below this, with the equal scores of 10%, are
Materials, Water, Emissions, Product and Services and Supplier Environmental
Assessment. The Compliance aspect receives the lowest score, and is thus the least
significant for this company (4%).
-----------------------------------------------------

INSERT FIGURE 4 ABOUT HERE

-----------------------------------------------------

From the analysis, the CEOs answers suggest that the most important factors in ACMOs
environmental sustainability performance are the methods and management of water
discharge and waste disposal (GRI aspect Effluents and Waste). ACMOs commitment to
reducing environmental impact is witnessed in the high weight for the GRI aspect Overall,
which deals with expenditures on environmental protection. The fact that five further GRI
aspects score a relative significance of 10% show that ACMO is uniformly committed to a
19

series of production practices for sustainability, corresponding to the GRI aspects concerning
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

materials recycling, emissions reduction, mitigation of product and service impacts, and
screening the supply chain. On the basis of these results, ACMO should focus its reporting on
sustainability performance on all practices that enhance the companys production efficiency
and minimize environmental impacts, as indicated. These correspond to the specific GRI
aspects: Effluents and Waste, Materials, Water, Emissions, Product and Services and
Supplier Environmental Assessment.
Figure 5 shows the ranking of the detailed GRI indicators entering under the above GRI
aspects of the environmental category, again for the case of ACMO SpA.
-----------------------------------------------------

INSERT FIGURE 5 ABOUT HERE

-----------------------------------------------------

For example under aspect Effluents and Waste, the ACMOs CEO considers G4-EN22
(total water discharge by quality and destination, with relative significance 3.22%) as the
GRI indicator most significant in describing the company water discharge performance.
Reflecting this result, the section of the ACMO sustainability performance report dealing
with the Effluents and Waste aspect should stress indicator G4-EN22.
The high relative importance given by ACMOs CEO to the Overall environmental aspect,
and under this, G4-EN31 (total environmental protection expenditures and investments),
means this is another indicator that should be described fully in the sustainability report.
Under the environmental aspect of Materials, indicators G4-EN1 and G4-EN2 have the
same relative importance. For this reason, ACMOs sustainability report should describe both
of these indicators with roughly the same emphasis and thoroughness, in order to capture the
company sustainability performance with respect to the relatives subjects (material used for
producing and packaging products and services; percentage of materials recycled). Among
the indicators under the Water aspect, G4-EN10 is the most significant (5%) and
20

accordingly, for this aspect, ACMOs sustainability report should focus on the percentage and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

total volume of water recycled and reused.

Furthermore, to describe the environmental impacts related to Emissions, the ACMOs
CEO considers G4-EN19 (reduction of greenhouse gas emissions) as the most important
(1.9%) of the seven possible indicators for reporting. This ranking in fact reflects the
subjective opinion of the CEO, who stresses that the company takes a proactive attitude
concerning the reduction of greenhouse gases resulting from its productive processes.
To monitor sustainability performance under Product and Services, the identification of
extent of impact mitigation of environmental impacts of products and services (G4-EN27)
is more relevant than the other possible indicator, of percentage of products sold and their
packaging materials that are reclaimed (G4-EN28). The company CEO considers the first
indicator (G4-EN27) as more significant, because it allows describing the impact of products
and services in a more comprehensive way.
In terms of the aspect Supplier environmental assessment, there are two possible indicators.
Here, the ACMOs CEO has indicated G4-EN32 (percentage of new suppliers screened using
environmental criteria) as more important than G4-EN33, which reports on series of impacts
involving the company supply chain and actions. Based on these results, it appears that the
CEO considers new suppliers as presenting important risks and possibilities for sustainability
action, making reporting on their screening more significant than reviewing the entire chain.
Figure 5 also shows the ranking of the remaining indicators, for the GRI aspects of the
environmental category that ACMOs CEO considers of lesser significance.
The company should use the outcomes from the fuzzy AHP method (as summarized in Figure
5 for the environmental category) to achieve more effective and efficient sustainability
reporting. By focusing on the most significant aspects and indicators, as indicated by the
analyses for all three GRI categories, ACMO can focus its sustainability reporting on topics
21

material to its business and stakeholders. It can achieve reports that matter, containing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

information about its most critical sustainability issues, while spending less resources in time,
money and expertise to carry out the actual reporting tasks.

5. Managerial implications for sustainability reporting

The proposed fuzzy AHP method offers a guide to companies in identifying the appropriate
content for preparation of their sustainability reports, in terms of the priority to place on the
different GRI Aspects and Indicators. The fuzzy AHP method indicates the relative
importance of the different aspects and their indicators in assessing company performance. In
keeping with the GRI reporting guidelines, each aspect must be described with a level of
accuracy corresponding to its level of importance. The most significant aspects should be
analyzed not only in qualitative terms, but also through presentation of quantitative
information. Under the GRI aspects, the prioritization of the indicators using fuzzy AHP
identifies the more suitable ones to report the sustainability performance for the issues of
concern. The higher is the relative importance of an indicator, the more attention should be
paid to its reporting, for example through analysis of quantitative information, time series and
trends.
For instance in the case study of the SME, ACMO SpA, the fuzzy AHP analysis points to
G4-EN22 as the highest priority indicator under the Effluents and Waste aspect. In
reporting on this aspect, ACMO would then be advised to disclose detailed information on
G4-EN22, for example enumerating the total volume of water discharges by destination and
over different periods, as well as giving the procedures for these calculations. However for
the same GRI aspect, G4-EN24 is less significant than G4-EN22, and in this case ACMO can
report in less detail: for example disclosing preventive measures, or identifying the number
and volume of spills should any occur over the reporting period.
22

The proposed fuzzy AHP method also serves in planning performance reporting in a further
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

way. In particular, it permits the company to identify of a threshold percentage of

significance, below which it will consider GRI indicators or the higher level of aspects as
immaterial, or irrelevant to sustainability reporting. For this purpose, we define the variable
Completeness that is calculated as the sum of the global weights of all the indicators whose
level of priority is greater than or equal to the one considered. For example in the ACMO
case, referring to Figure 5, the indicators whose global weights are to be summed are the ones
on the left of the indicator under analysis, plus that indicator itself. The priority levels for the
indicators are established applying two rankings. The first is on the basis of the aspect
ranking: continuing the example of Figure 5, the Water aspect ranks higher than
Emissions, therefore the group of Water indicators score higher in priority than those for
Emissions. Second, the indicators are ranked within their aspect: again in Figure 5, among
the group of Water indicators, G4-EN10 has a higher priority than G4-EN8. Examining
Figure 5, we see that ACMO could choose to achieve a level of Completeness of
approximately 81%, which would be accomplished by selecting GRI indicator G4-EN30 and
all the indicators and aspects to its left. As described in the paragraphs above, the company
would then report on the selected material aspects and indicators with a level of accuracy
corresponding to the level of priority (significance).
For ACMO, all GRI indicators and aspects with a level of priority lower than that of G4EN30 would then be not relevant (immaterial). These would not be described in the
sustainability report, instead being noted only with a short explanation of omission. For
example, the lowest ranked GRI aspect is Compliance, which deals with fines and sanctions
for non-compliance to environmental laws and regulations. In subjective opinion, the
ACMOs CEO considers the fact that the company is free of sanctions as not relevant in
reporting sustainability performance, because the Italian water technology industry is in any
23

case characterized by very low frequency of sanctions for environmental violations.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

Similarly, at the level of the indicators under Compliance, G4-EN29 (total numbers of fines,
sanctions, cases subjected to resolution) is deemed not relevant to describing ACMO SpAs
sustainability performance.
Obviously, the maximum level of Completeness in sustainability reporting (100%) could be
obtained by detailing all GRI aspects and indicators. However, higher levels of Completeness
require that the company commit to engaging greater resources in the implementation of
reporting. The ex-ante choice of a level of engagement is particularly important in the case of
companies with limited resources, such as is typical for SMEs. In this regard, the fuzzy AHP
method offers a tool to assist SMEs in planning reporting levels, and then further tools to
obtain properly balanced reporting on the material aspects and indicators, thus optimizing
the time and resources needed to collect the information for disclosing the company
sustainability performance.

6. Conclusions
The purpose of a companys sustainability report is to disclose information on its critical
economic, environmental and social impacts. Reporting on sustainability performance must
disclose appropriate levels of information on those aspects that are truly affected by company
activities, because not all sustainability issues have the same relevance for every company
(ISO, 26000; GRI, 2013a, 2013b). The current paper presents a fuzzy AHP method that
supports companies in the identification of the most appropriate areas and levels of content to
be included in their sustainability reports.
The method involves face-to-face interviews with the companys expert decision-makers
(CEO, top managers) to collect linguistic judgments that feed in to a specifically developed
fuzzy AHP method. The method deals with the imprecision and ambiguity typical of
24

linguistic judgments, and elaborates them to support informed decision-making in the

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

planning of sustainability reporting. The paper presents a case study to illustrate the
implementation of the method, applied to an Italian SME operating in the water technology
industry.
The method is based on the G4 GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. It prioritizes the
GRI aspects and indicators in terms of their significance for reporting the companys
sustainability performance. The level of priority of each aspect or indicator is used to identify
the type and degree of detail necessary for the sustainability report (e.g. quantitative
information, time series, trends). Using the fuzzy AHP method, company managers also
define a threshold of significance, below which GRI aspects and indicators will be excluded
from reporting, due not being relevant (not material).
The ex-ante choice of a level of completeness is particularly important for companies with
limited resources to dedicate to reporting activities, such as is typical for SMEs. The
proposed fuzzy AHP method is a tool that can assist SMEs in their sustainability reporting,
by focusing and reducing the tasks of data collection and report preparation. The method
makes sustainability reporting more feasible for the many SMEs that do not yet provide
formal, fully-structured reports. For those companies engaged in sustainability reporting, the
method serves to improve relevance and precision, while containing costs in terms of time
and resources.

Acknowledgments
We especially thank Paolo Sebastiani (ACMOs CEO) and Costanza Sebastiani for their
contribution in the realization of the case study.

25

References
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

Adams, C.A., 2002. Internal organizational factors influencing corporate social and ethical
reporting: beyond current theorizing. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
15(2), 223-50.
Alonso, J.A., Lamata M.T., 2006. Consistency in the analytic hierarchy process: a new
approach. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems,
14(4), 445459.
Arena, M., Azzone, G., 2012. A process-based operational framework for sustainability
reporting in SMEs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 19(4), 669686.
Baumann-Pauly, D., Wickert, C., Spence, L.J., Scherer, A.G., 2013. Organizing corporate
social responsibility in small and large firms: size matters. Journal of Business
Ethics, 115(4), 693-705.
Bebbington, J., 2001, June. Sustainable development: a review of the international
development, business and accounting literature. Accounting Forum, 25 (2), 128-157.
Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Belal, A.R., Cooper, S., 2011. The absence of corporate social responsibility reporting in
Bangladesh. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22(7), 654-667.
Birth, G., Illia, L., Lurati, F., Zamparini, A., 2008. Communicating CSR: practices among
Switzerland's top 300 companies. Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, 13(2), 182-196.
Bouten, L., Everaert, P., Van Liedekerke, L., De Moor, L., Christiaens, J., 2011, September.
Corporate social responsibility reporting: a comprehensive picture?. Accounting
Forum, 35 (3), 187-204.
Brown, H.S., de Jong, M., Levy, D.L., 2009. Building institutions based on information
disclosure: lessons from GRI's sustainability reporting. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 17(6), 571-580.
Burritt, R. L., Schaltegger, S., 2010. Sustainability accounting and reporting: fad or
trend?. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23(7), 829-846.
Calabrese, A., Costa, R., Menichini, T., 2013a. Using fuzzy AHP to manage intellectual
capital assets: an application to the ICT service industry. Expert Systems with
Applications, 40(9), 3747-3755.
Calabrese, A., Costa, R., Menichini, T., Rosati, F., 2013b. Does corporate social
responsibility hit the mark? A stakeholder oriented methodology for CSR
assessment. Knowledge and Process Management, 20(2), 77-89.
Chang, D.Y., 1996. Application of extend analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European Journal
of Operational Research, 95(3), 649-655.
Chen, S., Fan, J., 2011. Measuring corporate social responsibility based on a fuzzy analytical
hierarchy process. I.J. Computer Network and Information Security, 5, 13-22.
Csutora, R., Buckley, J.J., 2001. Fuzzy hierarchical analysis: the Lambda-Max
method. Fuzzy sets and Systems, 120(2), 181-195.
Dawkins, C., Ngunjiri, F.W., 2008. Corporate social responsibility reporting in South Africa,
a descriptive and comparative analysis. Journal of Business Communication, 45(3), 286307.
Deegan, C., 2002. Introduction: the legitimising effect of social and environmental
disclosuresa theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, 15(3), 282-311.
Forman, E.H., 1990. Random indices for Incomplete Pairwise Comparison Matrices.
European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 153-155.
26

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

Fortanier, F., Kolk, A., Pinkse, J., 2011. Harmonization in CSR reporting. Management
International Review, 51(5), 665-696.
Gamerschlag, R., Mller, K., Verbeeten, F., 2011. Determinants of voluntary CSR disclosure:
empirical evidence from Germany. Review of Managerial Science, 5, 233-262.
GRI-Global Reporting Initiative, 2006. G3.1, Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, available
at: www.globalreporting.org
GRI-Global Reporting Initiative (2013a). G4, Part1, Reporting Principles and Standard
Disclosure, available at: www.globalreporting.org.
GRI-Global Reporting Initiative (2013b). G4, Part2, Implementation Manual,
available at: www.globalreporting.org.
GRI-Global Reporting Initiative, 2013c. Sustainability Reporting Policies Worldwide,
available at: www.globalreporting.org.
Hahn, R., Khnen, M., 2013. Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results,
trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 59, 5-21.
Herzig, C., Schaltegger, S., 2011. Corporate sustainability reporting, in: Godemann J.,
Michelsen G. (Eds.), Sustainability Communication. Springer, Netherlands, pp.151-169.
Hooghiemstra, R., 2000. Corporate communication and impression management: new
perspectives why companies engage in corporate social reporting. Journal of Business
Ethics, 27(1-2), 55-68.
Hsu, C.W., Lee, W.H., Chao, W.C., 2013. Materiality analysis model in sustainability
reporting: a case study at Lite-On Technology Corporation. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 57, 142-151.
Huang, C.C., Chu, P.Y., Chiang, Y.H., 2008. A fuzzy AHP application in governmentsponsored R&D project selection. Omega, 36(6), 1038-1052.
ISO - International Organization for Standardization, 2010. Guidance on Social
Responsibility - ISO 26000:2010(E). Geneva.
Kaufmann, A., Gupta, M.M., 1991. Introduction to Fuzzy Arithmetic: Theory and
Applications, VanNostrand Reinhold, New York.
Koerber, C.P., 2010. Corporate responsibility standards: current implications and future
possibilities for peace through commerce. Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 461-480.
Kolk, A., 2005. Sustainability reporting. VBA Journal, 21(3), 34-42.
Kolk, A., 2008. Sustainability, accountability and corporate governance: exploring
multinationals' reporting practices. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(1), 1-15.
Krajnc, D., Glavi, P., 2005. How to compare companies on relevant dimensions of
sustainability. Ecological Economics, 55(4), 551-563.
Kwong, C.K., Bai, H., 2003. Determining the importance weights for the customer
requirements in QFD using a fuzzy AHP with an extent analysis approach. IIE
Transactions, 35(7), 619-626.
Lee, S.H., 2010. Using fuzzy AHP to develop intellectual capital evaluation model for
assessing their performance contribution in a university. Expert Systems with
Applications, 37(7), 4941-4947.
Lepoutre, J., Heene, A., 2006. Investigating the impact of firm size on small business social
responsibility: a critical review. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(3), 257-273.
Ligteringen, E., Zadek, S., 2005. The future of corporate responsibility codes, standards and
frameworks, available at: www.globalreporting.org.
Lozano, R., 2013. Sustainability inter-linkages in reporting vindicated: a study of European
companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 51, 57-65.
Lozano, R., Huisingh, D., 2011. Inter-linking issues and dimensions in sustainability
reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(2), 99-107.
27

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

Mahoney, L.S., Thorne, L., Cecil, L., LaGore, W., 2013. A research note on standalone
corporate social responsibility reports: signaling or greenwashing?. Critical Perspectives
on Accounting, 24(4), 350-359.
Marimon, F., Alonso-Almeida, M.D.M., Rodrguez, M.D.P., Cortez Alejandro, K.A., 2012.
The worldwide diffusion of the global reporting initiative: what is the point?. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 33, 132-144.
Meyskens, M., Paul, K., 2010. The evolution of corporate social reporting practices in
Mexico. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(2), 211-227.
Porter, M.E., Kramer, M.R., 2006. Strategy and society: the link between competitive
advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78-92.
Porter, M.E., Kramer, M.R., 2011. Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2),
62-77.
Robinson, J., 2004. Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable
development. Ecological Economics, 48(4), 369-384.
Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Schadewitz, H., Niskala, M., 2010. Communication via responsibility reporting and its effect
on firm value in Finland. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, 17, 96-106.
Schmeltz, L., 2014. Introducing value-based framing as a strategy for communicating
CSR. Social Responsibility Journal, 10(1), 184-206.
Wang, Y.M., Elhag, T.M.S., 2007. A fuzzy group decision making approach for bridge risk
assessment. Computer & Industrial engineering, 53(1), 137-148.
Wang, Y.M., Luo, Y., Hua, Z., 2008. On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its
applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 186 (2), 735-747.
Yager, R.R., 1981. A procedure for ordering fuzzy subsets of unit interval. Information
Sciences, 24, 143-161.

28

Figure

Assessing the significance of GRI aspects and indicators of the economic category

Economic
Performance

G4-EC1
G4-EC2

Market Presence

G4-EC5
G4-EC6

Indirect Economic
Impacts

G4-EC7

Procurement Practices

G4-EC9

G4-EC8

G4-EC3

G4-EN4

Figure 1: Hierarchical structure of GRI aspects and indicators of the economic category.

Assessing the significance of GRI aspects and indicators of the environmental category
Materials

G4-EN1
G4-EN2

Energy

G4-EN3

Water

Biodiversity

Emissions

Effluents and
Waste

Products and
Services

G4-EN8

G4-EN11

G4-EN15

G4-EN22

G4-EN27

G4-EN9

G4-EN12

G4-EN16

G4-EN23

G4-EN28

G4-EN10

G4-EN13

G4-EN17

G4-EN24

G4-EN14

G4-EN18

G4-EN25

G4-EN19

G4-EN26

Compliance

G4-EN29

Transport

G4-EN30

Overall

G4-EN31

Supplier
Environmental
Assessment

G4-EN32

Environmental
Grievance
Mechanisms

G4-EN34

G4-EN4

G4-EN5

G4-EN6

G4-EN7

G4-EN33

G4-EN20

G4-EN21

Figure 2: Hierarchical structure of GRI aspects and indicators of the environmental category.

Assessing the significance of GRI aspects and indicators of the social category
Labor Practices
and Decent Work

Human Rights

Society
G4-HR1
G4- HR2

Local
Communities

G4-SO1
G4- SO2

Customer Health
and Safety

G4-PR1
G4- PR2

Non-discrimination

G4-HR3

AntiCorruption

G4-SO3
G4-SO4
G4-SO5

Product and
Service Labeling

G4-PR3
G4-PR4
G4-PR5

G4-LA5
G4-LA6
G4-LA7
G4-LA8

Freedom of
Association and
Collective argaining

G4-HR4

Public Policy

G4-SO6

Marketing
Communications

G4-LA9
G4-LA10
G4-LA11

Child Labor

G4-HR5

Anti-competitive
Behavior

G4-SO7

Customer
Privacy

G4-PR8

Compliance

G4-SO8

Compliance

G4-PR9

Employment

G4-LA1
G4-LA2
G4-LA3

Labor Management
Relations

G4-LA4

Occupational Health
and Safety

Training and
education

Investment

Diversity and
Equal Opportunity

G4-LA12

Forced and
Compulsory
Labor

G4-LA13

Security
Practices

G4-HR7

Equal Remuneration
for Women and Men

Supplier Assessment
for Labor Practices

G4-LA14
G4-LA15

Indigenous
Rights

G4-HR8

Assessment

G4-HR9

Labor Practices
Grievance
Mechanisms

Product Responsibility

G4-HR6

Supplier Assessment
for Impacts on Society

G4-PR6
G4-PR7

G4-SO9
G4-SO10

Grievance
G4-SO11
Mechanisms
for Impacts on Society

G4-LA16
Supplier Human
Rights Assessment
Human Rights
Grievance
Mechanisms

G4-HR10
G4- HR11
G4-HR12

Figure 3: Hierarchical structure of GRI aspects and indicators of the social category.
3

Environmental
Grievance
Mechanisms 5%
Supplier
Environmental 10%
Assessment

Materials
10%

Energy
5%

Water

10%

Overall 11%

Transport

5% Biodiversity

10%

7%
4%

Compliance

Emissions

13%
10%

Effluents and Waste

Products and
Services

Figure 4: Level of significance (materiality) of GRI aspects under the environmental category.

96%

Environmental INDICATORS
Environmental COMPLETENESS
81%
70%
59.39%

38.9%

53%
50.0% 51.3%
47.0% 48.6%
45.4%
41.54% 44%

83.95%
81.65% 82.8%

100%

89.88% 91%
87.43%88.73%
85.1% 86%

74%

64%

54%

34%
28.92%

11%

10%

10%

10%

10%

10%

7%

5%

5%

ENA2

ENA3

ENA4

ENA5

ENA6

ENA7

ENA8

ENA9

EN10

Environmental Aspect

Description

Environmental Aspect

5%

4%
G4-EN29

13%
ENA1

G4-EN14

G4-EN12

G4-EN13

G4-EN11

G4-EN3

G4-EN7

G4-EN6

G4-EN5

1.15% 1.15% 1.15% 1.15% 0.4% 1.9% 1.3% 1.1% 0.6%

G4-EN34

7%

G4-EN4

G4-EN28

3%

G4-EN30

G4-EN27

7%

G4-EN33

4%

G4-EN32

6%
1%
G4-EN15

G4-EN21

G4-EN18

G4-EN20

G4-EN16

1.9% 1.6% 1.6% 1.5% 1.3% 1.2%

G4-EN17

2%

G4-EN19

3%

G4-EN9

5%

G4-EN10

G4-EN2

5.4% 4.6%
G4-EN1

G4-EN31

G4-EN25

G4-EN23

G4-EN24

G4-EN26

G4-EN22

11.57% 13%
9.1%
11%
6.24%
3.25% 3% 2.86% 2.47% 1.43%

G4-EN8

24%

5%

4%

EN11 EN12

Description

ENA1

Effluents and Waste

ENA7

Supplier Environmental Assessment

ENA2

Overall

ENA8

Transport

ENA3

Materials

ENA9

Energy

ENA4

Water

ENA10

Biodiversity

ENA5

Emissions

ENA11

Environmental Grievance Mechanisms

ENA6

Product and Services

ENA12

Compliance

Figure 5: Completeness and level of significance (materiality) of GRI aspects and indicators under the environmental category.

Table

Sustainability
Categories

Sustainability
Sub-Categories

Economic

Environmental

Labor Practices
and Decent Work
(LA)

Human Rights
(HR)
Social

Society
(SO)

Product
Responsibility
(PR)

Sustainability
Aspects (Indicators in brackets)
Economic Performance (G4-EC1; G4-EC2; G4-EC3; G4-EC4)
Market Presence (G4-EC5;G4-EC6)
Indirect Economic Impacts (G4-EC7;G4-EC8)
Procurement Practices(G4-EC9)
Materials (G4-EN1;G4-EN2)
Energy (G4-EN3;G4-EN4;G4-EN5;G4-EN6;G4-EN7)
Water (G4-EN8;G4-EN9G4-EN10)
Biodiversity (G4-EN11;G4-EN12;G4-EN13;G4-EN14)
Emissions (G4-EN15;G4-EN16;G4-EN17;G4-EN18; G4-EN19;G4-EN20;G4-EN21)
Effluents and Waste (G4-EN22;G4-EN23;G4-EN24;G4-EN25;G4-EN26)
Products and Services (G4-EN27;G4-EN28)
Compliance (G4-EN29)
Transport (G4-EN30)
Overall (G4-EN31)
Supplier Environmental Assessment (G4-EN32;G4-EN33)
Environmental Grievance Mechanisms (G4-EN34)
Employment (G4-LA1;G4-LA2;G4-LA3)
Labor/Management Relations (G4-LA4)
Occupational Health and Safety (G4-LA5;G4-LA6;G4-LA7;G4-LA8)
Training and Education (G4-LA9;G4-LA10;G4-LA11)
Diversity and Equal Opportunity (G4-LA12)
Equal Remuneration for Women and Men (G4-LA13)
Supplier Assessment for Labor Practices (G4-LA14; G4-LA15)
Labor Practices Grievance Mechanisms (G4-LA16)
Investment (G4-HR1;G4-HR2)
Non-discrimination (G4-HR3)
Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining (G4-HR4)
Child Labor (G4-HR5)
Forced and Compulsory Labor (G4-HR6)
Security Practices (G4-HR7)
Indigenous Rights (G4-HR8)
Assessment (G4-HR9)
Supplier Human Rights Assessment (G4-HR10;G4-HR11)
Human Rights Grievance Mechanisms (G4-HR12)
Local Communities (G4-SO1;G4-SO2
Anti-corruption (G4-SO3;G4-SO4;G4-SO5)
Public Policy (G4-SO6)
Anti-competitive Behavior (G4-SO7)
Compliance (G4-SO8)
Supplier Assessment for Impacts on Society (G4-SO9;G4-SO10)
Grievance Mechanisms for Impacts on Society (G4-SO11)
Customer Health and Safety (G4-PR1;G4-PR2)
Product and Service Labelling (G4-PR3;G4-PR4;G4-PR5)
Marketing Communications (G4-PR6;G4-PR7)
Customer Privacy (G4-PR8)
Compliance (G4-PR9)

Table 1: The GRI framework: sustainability categories, sub-categories, aspects and indicators.

Linguistic Scale
Equally important

Triangular fuzzy
conversation scale
(1,1,1)

Triangular fuzzy
reciprocal scale
(1,1,1)

Weakly more important

(1,3/2,2)

(1/2,2/3,1)

Moderately more important

(3/2,2,5/2)

(2/5,1/2,2/3)

Strongly more important

(2,5/2,3)

(1/3,2/5,1/2)

Extremely more important

(5/2,3,7/2)

(2/7,1/3,2/5)

Table 2: Triangular fuzzy conversation scale (Chang, 1996; Lee, 2010)

n
RI(n)

3
0.58

4
0.9

5
1.12

6
1.24

7
1.32

Table 3: RI of random matrices (Alonso and Lamata, 2006).

8
1.41

9
1.45

10
1.51

11
1.53

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

x
x

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

Table 4: Comparisons of GRI aspects under the environmental category.

Extremely less

Strongly less

Moderately less

Weakly less

Equally

Weakly more

Moderately more

Strongly more

GRI Aspect

Extremely more

# comparison

Environmental Category

GRI Aspect

Materials
Energy
Biodiversity
Emissions
Effluents and Waste
Product and Service
Compliance
Transport
Overall
Supplier Environmental Assessment
Environmental Grievance Mechanisms

1 G4-EN8
2 G4-EN8
3 G4-EN9

Table 5: Comparisons of GRI indicators under the Water aspect.

x
x

Extremely less

Strongly less

Moderately less

Weakly less

Equally

Weakly more

Moderately more

Strongly more

GRI Indicators

Extremely more

# comparison

Water Aspect

GRI Indicators

G4-EN9
G4-EN10
G4-EN10

G4-EN8

G4-EN9

G4-EN10

G4-EN8

1.5

0.33

0.4

0.5

G4-EN9

0.5

0.67

0.33

0.4

0.5

G4-EN10

2.5

2.5

Table 6: Pair-wise fuzzy judgments for GRI indicators under the Water aspect.

G4-EN8

G4-EN9

G4-EN10

G4-EN8

1.50

0.41

G4-EN9

0.72

0.41

G4-EN10

2.5

2.5

Table 7: Pair-wise crisp judgments for GRI indicators under the Water aspect.

G4-EN8

RS1

2.33

2.9

3.5

G4-EN9

RS2

1.83

2.07

2.5

G4-EN10

RS3

Table 8: Row sums for GRI indicators under the Water aspect.

G4-EN8

S1

0.1959

0.2644

0.3388

G4-EN9

S2

0.1477

0.1885

0.2543

G4-EN10

S3

0.4545

0.5471

0.6272

Table 9: Normalized row sums for GRI indicators under the Water aspect.

Materials

Global Weight

ASPECT

Local Weight

INDICATOR

Global Weight

Local Weight

INDICATOR

ASPECT

10%

G4-EN17

16%

1.6%

G4-EN1

54%

5.4%

G4-EN18

13%

1.3%

G4-EN2

46%

4.6%

G4-EN19

19%

1.9%

5%

G4-EN20

14,5%

1.45%

G4-EN21

12%

1.2%

Energy
G4-EN3

8%

0.4%

G4-EN4

23%

1.15%

G4-EN5

23%

1.15%

G4-EN22

25%

3.25%

G4-EN6

23%

1.15%

G4-EN23

19%

2.47%

G4-EN7

23%

1.15%

G4-EN24

22%

2.86%

10%

G4-EN25

11%

1.43%

G4-EN26

23%

2.99%

Water

Effluents and Waste

13%

G4-EN8

26%

2.6%

G4-EN9

20%

2%

G4-EN10

54%

5.4%

G4-EN27

59%

5.9%

5%

G4-EN28

41%

4.1%

Biodiversity

Product and Services

10%

G4-EN11

39%

1.95%

Compliance /G4-EN29

4%

G4-EN12

23%

1.15%

Transport/G4-EN30

7%

G4-EN13

26%

1.3%

Overall/ G4-EN31

11%

G4-EN14

12%

0.6%

Supplier Environmental Assessment

10%

Emissions

10%

G4-EN32

66%

6.6%

G4-EN33

34%

3.4%

5%

5%

G4-EN15

10%

1%

G4-EN16

15,5%

1.55%

Table 10: Overall results of the environmental category.

Environmental Grievance
Mechanisms / G4-EN34

Appendix

Economic Performance

Global Weight

Local Weight

ASPECT

INDICATOR

Appendix

23%

G4-EC1

35%

8%

G4-EC2

11%

3%

G4-EC3

32%

7%

G4-EN4

22%

5%

Market Presence

24%

G4-EC5

50%

12%

G4-EC6

50%

12%

Indirect Economic Impacts

35%

G4-EC7

50%

17.5%

G4-EC8

50%

17.5%

Procurement Practices/G4-EC9

18%

Table A.1: Overall results of the economic category.

Global Weight

Local Weight

ASPECT

INDICATOR

SUB-CATEGORY

25%

LABOR PRACTICES
AND DECENT WORK
9%

2.3%

G4-LA1

25%

0.6%

G4-LA2

50%

1.11%

G4-LA3

25%

0.6%

Labor Management Relations/G4-LA4

12%

3%

Occupational Health and Safety

17%

4.2%

G4-LA5

37%

1.5%

G4-LA6

3%

1.2%

G4-LA7

23%

1%

G4-LA8

10%

0.4%

19%

4.8%

G4-LA9

37%

1.8%

G4-LA10

37%

1.8%

G4-LA11

26%

1.2%

Diversity and Equal Opportunity/G4-LA12

11%

2.7%

Equal Remuneration for Women and Men/G4-LA13

13%

3.2%

Supplier Assessment for Labor Practices

10%

2.5%

G4-LA14

59%

1.5%

G4-LA15

41%

1%

9%

2.3%

Employment

Training and education

Labor Practices Grievance Mechanisms/G4-LA16

HUMAN RIGHTS

25%
14%

3.5%

G4-HR1

50%

1.75%

G4-HR2

50%

1.75%

Non-discrimination/G4-HR3

12%

3%

Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining/G4-HR4

7.5%

1.9%

Child Labor/G4-HR5

12.5%

3.1%

Forced and Compulsory Labor/G4-HR6

8.5%

2.2%

Security Practices/G4-HR7

7%

1.8%

Indigenous Rights/G4-HR8

6.5%

1.6%

Assessment/G4-HR9

9.5%

2.4%

Supplier Human Rights Assessment

12%

3%

G4-HR10

59%

1.77%

G4-HR11

41%

1.23%

10.5%

2.6%

Investment

Human Rights Grievance Mechanisms/G4-HR12

Table A.2: Overall results of the social category (part 1).

Global Weight

Local Weight

INDICATOR

CATEGOTRY

SUB-

ASPECT

25%

SOCIETY
18%

4.5%

G4-SO1

50%

2.25%

G4-SO2

50%

2.25%

18.5%

4.7%

G4-SO3

20%

0.9%

G4-SO4

40%

1.9%

G4-SO5

40%

1.9%

Public Policy/G4-SO6

13%

3.2%

Anti-competitive Behavior/G4-SO7

14%

3.5%

Compliance/G4-SO8

10%

2.5%

Supplier Assessment for Impacts on Society

14.5%

3.6%

G4-SO9

50%

1.8%

G4-SO10

50%

1.8%

12%

3%

Local Communities

Anti-Corruption

Grievance Mechanisms for Impacts on Society/G4SO11

PRODUCT RESPONSIBILITY

25%
26.5%

6.6%

G4-PR1

50%

3.3%

G4-PR2

50%

3.3%

18%

4.5%

G4-PR3

40%

1.8%

G4-PR4

20%

0.9%

G4-PR5

40%

1.8%

28%

7%

G4-PR6

66%

4.62%

G4-PR7

34%

2.38%

Customer Privacy/G4-PR8

14%

3.5%

Compliance/G4-PR9

13.5%

3.4%

Customer Health and Safety

Product and Service Labeling

Marketing Communications

Table A.3: Overall results of the social category (part 2).