University of WollongongResearch Online

University of Wollongong Thesis Collection University of Wollongong Thesis Collections

2012

Environmental accounting disclosures of Australianoil and gas companiesEltaib Elzarrouk EltaibUniversity of Wollongong

Research Online is the open access institutional repository for theUniversity of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOWLibrary: research-pubs@uow.edu.au

Recommended CitationEltaib, Eltaib Elzarrouk, Environmental accounting disclosures of Australian oil and gas companies, Master of Accounting - Researchthesis, School of Accounting and Finance, University of Wollongong, 2012. http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/3777

i

UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG

Environmental accounting disclosures of Australian oil and

gas companies A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the

requirements for the award of the degree of Master of Accounting (Research)

From the University of Wollongong

By Eltaib Elzarrouk Eltaib

School of Accounting and Finance 2012

ii

Thesis certification

I, Eltaib Elzarrouk Eltaib, declare that this thesis, submitted in fulfilment of the

requirements for the award of Master of Accountancy by Research, in the school of

Accounting and Finance, University of Wollongong, is wholly my own work unless

otherwise referenced or acknowledged. The document has not been submitted for

qualifications at any other academic institution.

Eltaib Elzarrouk Eltaib

iii

Contents Thesis certification....................................................................................................... ii

Contents ..................................................................................................................... iii

List of tables ............................................................................................................. viii

List of Figures ............................................................................................................. x

List of the Abbreviations ............................................................................................ xii

Abstract .................................................................................................................... xiii

Acknowledgment ....................................................................................................... xv

Chapter 1. Introduction ............................................................................................. 1

1.1. Background ................................................................................................... 2

1.2. Theoretical framework ................................................................................... 12

1.3. Research Methodology .................................................................................. 13

1.4. Thesis structure ............................................................................................. 14

1.5. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 16

Chapter 2. Literature review ................................................................................... 19

2.1. A general overview of environmental accounting ........................................ 20

2.2. The pattern of corporate environmental disclosure ..................................... 29

2.2.1. Mandatory disclosure ........................................................................... 30

2.2.2. Voluntary disclosure ............................................................................. 30

2.3. Ongoing research in environmental accounting literature ........................... 31

iv

2.4. Empirical research in environmental disclosure .......................................... 37

2.5. Environmental disclosure in Australia ......................................................... 46

2.6. Conclusion .................................................................................................. 52

Chapter 3. Theoretical framework .......................................................................... 54

3.1. Brief Introduction ......................................................................................... 54

3.2. General discussion of legitimacy theory ........................................................ 58

3.2.1. Social contract ......................................................................................... 60

3.2.2. Social expectations ................................................................................. 61

3.3. Corporate reports and communicating legitimation tactics. ........................... 63

3.4. Environmental disclosure as a response to the public expectations .............. 65

3.5. Implication of legitimacy theory in environmental accounting research ......... 67

3.6. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 70

Chapter 4. Research design ................................................................................... 72

4.1. Brief introduction of extractive industry .......................................................... 72

4.2. Sample selection: .......................................................................................... 78

4.3. Content analysis: ........................................................................................... 82

4.3.1 Unit of analysis ......................................................................................... 85

4.3.2. Coding frame ........................................................................................... 86

4.3.2.1. Coding categories ............................................................................. 87

4.3.2.2. Coding the level of information ......................................................... 93

4.3.2.3. Coding the type of information .......................................................... 95

v

4.3.2.4 Disclosure measurement ................................................................... 96

4.4. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 97

Chapter 5. Application of content analysis ........................................................... 100

5.1. Woodside Petroleum Company ................................................................... 101

5.2. Origin Energy ............................................................................................... 107

5.3. Santos ......................................................................................................... 112

5.4. Oil Search .................................................................................................... 117

5.5. WorleyParsons ............................................................................................ 122

5.6. Karoon Gas Australia ................................................................................... 127

5.7. Aurora oil and Gas ....................................................................................... 132

5.8. Beach petroleum .......................................................................................... 137

5.9. AWE ............................................................................................................ 142

5.10. Eastern Star Gas ....................................................................................... 147

5.11. Conclusion ................................................................................................. 151

Chapter 6. Conclusion .......................................................................................... 158

6.1. Conclusions about the research question .................................................... 159

6.1.1. The key focus of the environmental disclosures .................................... 159

6.1.2. The level of detail and the type of information (financial and non-financial)

........................................................................................................................ 160

6.1.3. The applicability of legitimacy theory ..................................................... 161

6.1.4. The association between the size and the corporate environmental

disclosure ........................................................................................................ 161

vi

6.2. The contribution of the study to the body of knowledge ............................... 162

6.2.1. Contribution to the academic literature in the area of environmental

disclosure ........................................................................................................ 162

6.2.2. Contribution to the methodology ........................................................... 163

6.3. Limitations of the study ................................................................................ 163

6.3.1. Limitations of sample selection ............................................................. 163

6.3.2. Limitations of data collection ................................................................. 164

6.4. Future research ........................................................................................... 164

6.5. Final word .................................................................................................... 165

Reference list ....................................................................................................... 1656

Appendixes ............................................................................................................ 194

Appendix 1: Environmental Performance Indicators of Sustainability Reporting

Guidelines (GRI) ................................................................................................. 194

Appendix 2: content analysis categories used by beck et al. (2010) .................. 197

Appendix 3: Content analysis categories used by Hackston, D. and Milne, M. J.

(1996) ................................................................................................................. 199

Appendix 4: Analysis of individual year. .............................................................. 205

1. Woodside Petroleum Company Limited (WPL) ...................................... 205

2. Origin Energy Company Limited (ORG) ................................................. 211

3. Santos Company Limited (STO) ............................................................ 217

4. Oil Search Company Limited (OSH) ...................................................... 223

5. Worleyparsons Company Limited (WOR) .............................................. 229

vii

6. Karoon Gas Australia Company Limited (KAR) ..................................... 235

7. Aurora Oil & Gas Company Limited (AUT) ............................................ 241

8. Beach Petroleum Company limited (BPT) ............................................. 247

9. AWE Company Limited (AWE) .............................................................. 253

10. Eastern Star Gas Company Limited (ESG) ............................................ 259

viii

List of tables Table 4.1: Companies list ......................................................................................... 80

Table 4.2: The Categories of Content analysis ........................................................ 88

Table 4.3: The level of information or detail of the disclosure .................................. 94

Table 4.4 Type of information ................................................................................... 96

Table 5.1: Environmental disclosure of Woodside Petroleum (2005-2010) ............ 103

Table 5.2: level of details of disclosure (LDS) of Woodside Petroleum Company .. 104

Table 5.3: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Woodside

Petroleum Company............................................................................................... 106

Table 5.4: Environmental disclosure of Origin Energy (2005-2010) ....................... 108

Table 5.5: Level of details of disclosure (LDS) of Origin Energy ............................ 110

Table 5.6: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Origin energy

............................................................................................................................... 111

Table 5.7: Environmental disclosure of Santos (2005-2010) .................................. 113

Table 5.8: Level of details of disclosure (LDS) of Santos ....................................... 115

Table 5.9: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Santos ........ 116

Table 5.10: Environmental disclosure of Oil Search (2005-2010) .......................... 118

Table 5.11: Level of details of disclosure (LDS) of Oil Search ............................... 120

Table 5.12: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Oil Search . 121

Table 5.13: Environmental disclosure of WorleyParsons (2005-2010) ................... 123

Table 5.14: Level of details of disclosure (LDS) of WorleyParsons ........................ 125

Table 5.15: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of WorleyParsons

............................................................................................................................... 126

Table 5.16: Environmental disclosure of Karoon Gas Australia (2005-2010) ......... 128

Table 5.17: Level of details of disclosure (LDS) of Karoon Gas Australia .............. 129

ix

Table 5.18: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Karoon Gas

Australia ................................................................................................................. 131

Table 5.19: Environmental disclosure of Aurora oil and Gas (2005-2010) ............. 133

Table 5.20: Level of details of disclosure (LDS) of Aurora oil and Gas .................. 134

Table 5.21: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Aurora oil and

Gas ......................................................................................................................... 136

Table 5.22: Environmental disclosure of Beach Petroleum (2005-2010)................ 138

Table 5.23: Level of details of disclosure (LDS) of Beach petroleum .................... 139

Table 5.24: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Beach

petroleum ............................................................................................................... 141

Table 5.25: Environmental disclosure of AWE (2005-2010) ................................... 143

Table 5.26: Level of details of disclosure (LDS) of AWE ........................................ 144

Table 5.27: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of AWE ......... 146

Table 5.28: Environmental disclosure of Eastern Star Gas (2005-2010)................ 147

Table 5.29: Level of details of disclosure (LDS) of Eastern Star Gas ..................... 149

Table 5.30: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Eastern Star

Gas ......................................................................................................................... 150

x

List of Figures

Figure 5.1 Environmental disclosure of Woodside Petroleum (2005-2010)............ 103

Figure 5.2 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Woodside Petroleum Company .. 105

Figure 5.3 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Woodside

Petroleum Company. .............................................................................................. 106

Figure 5.4 Environmental disclosure of Origin Energy (2005-2010) ....................... 109

Figure 5.5 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Origin Energy .............................. 110

Figure 5.6 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Origin energy

............................................................................................................................... 112

Figure 5.7 Environmental disclosure of Santos (2005-2010) .................................. 114

Figure 5.8 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Santos......................................... 115

Figure 5.9 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Santos ........ 117

Figure 5.10 Environmental disclosure of Oil Search (2005-2010) .......................... 119

Figure 5.11 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Oil Search ................................ 120

Figure 5.12 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Oil Search 122

Figure 5.13 Environmental disclosure of WorleyParsons (2005-2010) .................. 124

Figure 5.14 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of WorleyParsons ........................ 125

Figure 5.15 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of WorleyParsons

............................................................................................................................... 127

Figure 5.16 Environmental disclosure of Karoon Gas Australia (2005-2010) ......... 128

Figure 5.17 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Karoon Gas Australia ................ 130

Figure 5.18 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Karoon Gas

Australia ................................................................................................................. 131

Figure 5.199. Environmental disclosure of Aurora oil and Gas (2005-2010) .......... 133

Figure 5.20 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Aurora oil and Gas .................... 135

xi

Figure 5.21 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Aurora oil and

Gas ......................................................................................................................... 136

Figure 5.22 Environmental disclosure of Beach petroleum (2005-2010) ................ 138

Figure 5.23 Level of details of disclosure (LDS) of Beach petroleum ..................... 140

Figure 5.24 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Beach

petroleum ............................................................................................................... 141

Figure 5.25 Environmental disclosure of AWE (2005-2010) ................................... 143

Figure 5.26 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of AWE.......................................... 145

Figure 5.27 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of AWE ......... 146

Figure 5.28 Environmental disclosure of Eastern Star Gas (2005-2010) ............... 148

Figure 5.29 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Eastern Star Gas ...................... 149

Figure 5.30 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Eastern Star

Gas ......................................................................................................................... 151

xii

List of the Abbreviations ASX: Australian Stock Exchange

AUT: Aurora Oil & Gas Company Limited

AWE: AWE Company Limited

BPT: Beach Petroleum Company Limited

CEP: Council for Economic Priorities

CFOs: Chief Finance Officers

ESG: Eastern Star Gas Company Limited

CSR: Corporate social responsibility

ECEP: European Community’s Environmental Policy

GRI: Sustainability Reporting Guidelines

KAR: Karoon Gas Australia Company Limited

LDS: Level of details of disclosure

NGOs: Environmental Non-Government Organizations

NPI: the National Pollutant Inventory

ORG: Origin Energy Company Limited

OSH: Oil Search Company Limited

SEAL: the Social and Environmental Accounting Literature

STO: Santos Company Limited

WOR: WorleyParsons Company Limited

WPL: Woodside Petroleum Company Limited

xiii

Abstract Environmental accounting has become an attractive area of research; in particular,

research on environmental disclosure has received increased focus in the

accounting discipline. This thesis investigates and explores the environmental

accounting disclosures of Australian oil and gas companies by analysing and

examining corporate reports. An interpretative approach to social science research is

applied in this study using the research method of interpretative content analysis.

The study is conducted on the 10 largest Australian oil and gas companies listed in

ASX, and the data is extracted from the Annual Reports and other stand-alone

sustainability reports of the selected companies over the period 2005-2010.

The findings show that corporate environmental disclosure trend of the studied

companies fluctuated during the study period (2005-2010). However, since 2007,

corporate environmental disclosure of most of the selected companies has improved.

In addition, the findings indicate that most of the disclosed information is considered

to be general environmental information and classified under two main categories;

firstly, the category of general environmental disclosure and secondly the category of

biodiversity and land. Furthermore, the findings support the applicability of legitimacy

theory, through analysing the corporate environmental disclosures; a large volume of

these disclosures were of favourable environmental information. The findings also

show that most of the disclosed environmental information is non-financial

information, disclosed in pure narrative.

Although, this study has limitations, it provides indications on the corporate

environmental disclosures made by Australian Oil and Gas companies. The study

xiv

also introduces some areas of future research such as: 1) a study to determine the

influence that change of the Federal Government from Liberal Government to Labour

Government may have on the environmental disclosures practice. 2) A similar study

to examine the influence of applying Carbon Emissions Pricing by the Australian

government on the environmental disclosures.

xv

Acknowledgment

Completing this thesis has been a long journey. I am grateful to Allah who blessed

me the opportunity to complete this thesis. In this journey, there are some individuals

who have contributed in this thesis and support me even by single word. I would like

to express my thanks to all of them.

Firstly, I would like to register my sincere appreciations to each one of my

supervisors: Graham Bowrey, Shirley Xu and Dr. Sudhir Lodh. They have been very

helpful for me in writing this thesis; they provided for me invaluable expertise,

guidance and friendship. Also, I would like to thank my colleagues from HDR

students and all members both Academic and Administrative staff of the School of

Accounting and Finance in the University of Wollongong for their support.

Also, my sincere appreciations go to my family in Libya. Especially, my father,

mother, brothers, sisters, sisters in law, nieces and nephew for their endless support

and encouragement that they have given to me through my study journey.

Lastly, I would like to thank my friends in Australia and Libya for their support and

friendship.

1

Chapter 1. Introduction This thesis investigates and explores the environmental accounting disclosures of

Australian oil and gas companies by analysing and examining corporate reports. An

interpretative content analysis is applied in this study to analyse annual reports and

other stand-alone sustainability reports. The study is conducted on the 10 largest

Australian oil and gas companies listed on the Australian stock exchange (ASX), in

the time period between 2005-2010.

This chapter, which outlines the elements of this thesis, begins with a discussion of

the background of the area of research. In this section, the importance of the

environment and the increasing public concern about the environmental impact of

organisational activities are presented. Included in this section is a general

discussion of environmental accounting and its benefits. This section highlights some

challenges and problems in environmental accounting and the need for more

academic research in the area of environmental accounting, in particular,

environmental disclosure. The research objectives and motivation are presented,

and this is followed by the research question. The second section of this chapter

presents a brief overview of the theoretical framework of this research and the theory

applied in this research—legitimacy theory. The third section provides an

introduction to the methodological framework of the research including discussion on

the research method of content analysis. The final section of this chapter presents

the overall structure of the thesis.

2

1.1. Background In recent years, environmental issues have become a major social focus and an

issue of increasing public concern (Beck et al. 2010; Gray & Bebbington, 2001;

Lamberton, 2005; Milne & Gray, 2007). This concern has given rise to a greater

impetus for the disclosure of the environmental and social impacts of modern

corporations (Guthrie & Farneti, 2008; Lamberton, 2005), especially as these

disclosures are seen by some to have a commercial imperative (Spence, 2007).

Before the 1960s, environmental issues did not attract much attention from either

modern big organisations or governments (Dunlap, 1997). However, during the

1960s the public became increasingly interested and focused on environmental

issues such as pollution and resource consumption (Dunlap, 1997). The interest

was driven in part by concerns about the impact of pollution on individuals in society.

This interest is reflected, for example, by the improvements made to the European

Community’s Environmental Policy (ECEP) in the 1970s. These improvements

reflected the European Community concerns about the quality of peoples’ lives and

improving life expectancy. This improvement is outlined in the adoption of several

principles in relation to the environment such as pollution and the action that could

be implemented to prevent this pollution and protect the environment (Hildebrand,

1997).

Since the 1960s there have been several changes in society including rapid

advances in the information technology sector and the education of customers and

consumers (McClosky & Smith, 1997), which have contributed to the environment

becoming a more significant societal issue. The public’s concern for the environment

3

and the impact of companies on the environment has been discussed for a number

of decades, particularly in reference to countries such as Great Britain, Germany,

Netherlands, North America, New Zealand and Australia (Dunlap, 1997; Gray et al.

1996; Hildebrand, 1997). For example, research conducted by Simintiras et al.

(1997) in the 1990s found that “73% of UK consumers were concerned about the

environment” (p.415). It is viewed that human activities are acknowledged as having

the greatest impact on society and the environment. An example of this is that many

scientists have argued that human activities are the major cause of global warming

and environmental damage (Unerman et al. 2007).

In response to these concerns, companies and organisations, especially

multinational businesses, have been attempting to seriously take into account their

environmental and social impacts (Unerman et al. 2007). Deloitte (2011) examined

the motivation for environmental disclosures of New Zealand companies and

revealed that the main motivations are public concern and stakeholder rights. In

addition, environmental sustainable development has become more common within

companies and organisations. The concept of sustainability encourages

organisations to enhance business activities that are environmentally and socially

sustainable (Unerman et al. 2007).

This increased concern about the environment is reflected in the increase of social

accountability which includes responsibility to undertake a particular action and

responsibility to provide an account for this action (Gray, et al. 1996). Sustainability

and environmental reporting has resulted in additional organisational disclosures to

provide a sufficient description of social and environmental impacts of an

4

organisation’s operations (Gray et al. 1996; Guthrie & Farneti, 2008). Furthermore,

there is a view that organisations continually attempt to develop their social and

environmental reporting which in turn influences their environmental performance.

This action is seen as a response to community, government and other stakeholders

concerns about organisational environmental performance (Beck et al. 2010; Parker,

2000a).

Although, in the past, organisations were focused upon the competitiveness of the

business sector and financial benefits without giving great attention to the

environmental problems caused by their activities (McCloskey & Smith, 1997), in

recent times businesses and organisations have acknowledged an imperative to

improve their operations and products in relation to environmental friendly practices

to gain competitive advantages (Prothero & McDonagh, 1992; Spence, 2007).

According to McCloskey and Smith (1997), this appears to be due to components of

society, including investors, creditors, government and consumers, who are

becoming more interested in environmental issues. This has placed pressure on the

organisations to alleviate the adverse consequences of their activities on the

environment (McCloskey & Smith, 1997).

To assist managers in organisations make better business decisions while

acknowledging the impact of their organisation on society and the environment,

accounting information should include the relevant environmental information. Not

only does accounting play a key role in the internal operations of an organisation, it

also plays an enormous role to externally demonstrate social and environmental

responsibility (Lodhia, 2003). Accounting is relevant to external stakeholders in

5

providing sufficient information about issues including social responsibility,

sustainability and accountability. The focus on environmental issues within an

organisation is a responsibility of all departments within the organisation. The

departments are responsible for providing financial performance information and

departments concerned with the environmental impact of the organisation should

provide valuable information for all decision makers (Cho et al. 2007).

In this sense, there is another role played by companies using corporate reports and

sustainability reports rather than just compliance with legislation, companies could

also use the reports to improve their reputation and legitimacy within society. By

improving corporate reputation, companies could create sustainable growth of

company (Rattanaphaphtham & Kunsrison, 2011). Deegan and Rankin (1996) found

companies tend to disclose the positive and favourable environmental information to

present a positive image and improve their reputation among the community that in

which they operate. So companies could imply a greenwash which means that

companies seek to gain a social licence to operate through presenting positive

image. Spence (2007) highlighted that corporate social and environmental reporting

practices are driven by ‘business case’”. The business case for corporate social and

environmental reporting appears to be multifarious within each firm for example; it

could be the reputation management or stakeholder management.

Adams (2002) infers that different organisational processes affect the way in which

companies report social and environmental information. Discourse may be formed by

excluding certain realities and including others. For example, financial statements

exclude the social and environmental impacts of company’s activity insofar as they

6

cannot be captured in financial terms, thereby allowing these environmental impacts

to continue and be acceptable in the name of economic rationality Spence (2007). In

the case of extractive industry particularly oil and gas sector, companies extract

natural sources including crude oil and natural gas (Edino et al. 2010). This depletion

of natural sources could affect the company’s reputation, so companies might be

less transparent. Companies could be encouraged to provide discourse which

overlooks impacts or discloses using rhetorical spin (Beck et al. 2010).

Consequently, it is essential for all departments, which are responsible for

accounting reports to take into account environmental costs to ensure compatibility

between the organisations’ competitiveness and the financial benefit, as well as to

consider sustainable environmental issues (Parker, 2000a). Organisational financial

return is linked with environmental responsibility and accountability to all

stakeholders including community, government and shareholders.

Environmental accounting has been defined by Gray et al. (1987, p. ix) as

“… the process of communicating the social and environmental effects of

organisations’ economic actions to particular interest groups within society and to

society at large. As such it involves extending the accountability of organisations

(particularly companies), beyond the traditional role of providing a financial account

to the owners of capital, in particular, shareholders. Such an extension is predicated

upon the assumption that companies do have wider responsibilities than simply to

make money for their shareholders” (Gray et al. 1987, p. ix)

Consistently with the increase in public concern of environmental issues,

environmental accounting practice has received attention from the scholars in the

area of accounting research. Since the early 1970s, a number of academic

researchers have studied environmental accounting in different countries from

7

different perspectives. Much of this research was dominated by studies focused on

environmental disclosures (see, for example, Ahmed & Mousa, 2010; Andrew et al.

1989; Baxi & Ray, 2009; Beattie et al. 2004; Beck et al. 2010; Belal, 2000; Bewley &

Li, 2000; Campbell, 2004; Deegan & Gordon, 1996; Disu & Gray, 1998; Gray, 1993;

Guthrie & Abeysekera, 2006; Guthrie & Mathews, 1985; Hackston & Milne, 1996;

Harte & Owen, 1991; Hegde et al. 1997; Rockness, 1985; Teoh & Thong, 1984;

Ullmann, 1985; Zeghal & Ahmed, 1990). This increase in the number of

environmental accounting studies is reflected in several academic journals providing

special issues (see, for instance, Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 1991;

Accounting Forum, 1995; European Accounting Review, 2000 and Journal of

Corporate Citizenship, 2004).

Since the early 1970s, this wealthy history of environmental accounting research has

made a great contribution in the field of social and environmental accounting either in

the theoretical framework, methodology or research issues. Considerable work has

been done by Mathews (1997), who provided a comprehensive literature of

environmental accounting research over twenty-five years and highlighted the main

contributions to the field of research. The current literature on environmental

disclosure has been classified by Berthelot et al. (2003) in three categories: the first

category is the managerial decisions to disclose environmental information; the

second category is value relevance of corporate environmental disclosure and finally

the reliability of corporate environmental disclosure. A small number of these studies

examine the quality of environmental disclosure (Rattanaphaphtham & Kunsrison,

2011). In particular, in Australia, organisations and companies have disclosed

environmental information for many years, but the focus was more on the quantity of

8

disclosure instead of the quality of the environmental information that had been

disclosed (Kent & Chan, 2003). Deegan and Gordon (1996) stated that although

Australian companies have released environmental information for many years, a lot

of criticism has been raised regarding the quality of this environmental information.

This may be because companies focus on the quantity of the information rather than

the quality.

The quality of the environmental information disclosure can be seen as a key value

for companies. Many benefits could be provided if the company releases high quality

environmental information (Rattanaphaphtham & Kunsrison, 2011). For example,

competitive advantage has been identified as one of the benefits that can be

associated with the disclosure of corporate environmental information (Kent & Chan,

2003; Meek, Roberts & Gray, 1995). This is consistent with Rattanaphaphtham and

Kunsrison (2011) who found that positive opinion of customers, community support

and employees’ satisfaction could be gained by disclosure of information about

environmental events.

There are a number of significant issues in relation to environmental accounting.

One of these issues is capturing all the information, both financial and non-financial,

which relates to the environmental problems (Steadman et al. 1995). Lee (2007) also

states that environmental damage is presented as one of the problematic concerns

for the company itself, specifically for oil and gas companies. Lee (2007) concluded

that the most problematic risks in the extractive industry are those associated with

the environmental impacts of the company’s operations. Capturing all the information

that is associated with the environmental impacts and conveying it to stakeholders

9

present a very challenging task for all companies around the world.

Rattanaphaphtham and Kunsrison (2011) state that the quality of disclosure of

environmental information might affect the interpretation of stakeholders and

enhance investor confidence. There is further evidence (see, for example, Deegan &

Rankin, 1996; Deloitte, 2011; Spence, 2007) which demonstrates that companies

disclose and release just the good news about their environmental performance and

they ignore the bad news and their impacts on the environment. Deegan and Rankin

(1996) examined the environmental reporting practices of 20 Australian companies

and they found most of the companies disclose just the positive, favourable

environmental information to improve their image and reputation.

The motivation of this research is related to the increase in public concern about the

businesses activities and the impact of these activities on the environment. The

current research agenda is attempting to achieve several objectives. The first

objective is to examine and explore the corporate environmental disclosures of

Australian companies in the extractive industry sector. Secondly, it is to identify the

categories used by these companies to disclose environmental information. Finally,

the corporate environmental disclosures of these organisations will be analysed

using interpretative content analysis.

The research question of this study is framed as follows:

To what extent do Australian oil and gas companies disclose their

environmental impacts (both positive and negative) in annual reports and

sustainability reports?

10

To address this research question, the extractive industry is chosen as an industry

with positive and negative impacts. A sample of the top 10 capitilisation is selected

from the Oil and Gas sector in Australia. The justification for selecting this sector is

environmental sensitivity. The appropriate companies or samples to study the

corporate environmental disclosure are the companies more likely to be governed by

legislation on environmental issues; and hence, more likely to be required to report

on environmental performance (Frost, 2007). According to Deegan and Gordon

(1996) the more environmentally sensitive industry is, the greater the attention that

will be received from the environmental lobby groups (including environmental

organisations, associations, the media and governments). The extractive industry

(which includes the Oil and Gas sector) is universally considered as one of the most

environmentally sensitive industries (see, for instance, Deegan & Gordon, 1996;

Frost, 1999; Frost, 2007; Hackston & Milne, 1996; Patten, 1992). In their paper,

Deegan and Gordon (1996) studied the environmental disclosure practices of

Australian companies in different industries; they also investigated the environmental

sensitivity of these industries. Deegan and Gordon (1996) concluded that the Oil and

Gas industry is one of the five most environmentally sensitive industries, and it is

more likely to respond to any environmental event. This view is similar to what

Patten (1992) found in his article, that after the Exxon Valdez disaster of 1989, the

Oil and Gas companies in the US started to disclose more environmental information

and the corporate environmental disclosures improved considerably.

In Australia there are currently 41 companies listed on the Australian Stock

Exchange (ASX) under the Oil and Gas Sector. The research data will be based on

the largest 10 companies, based on market capitalisation over the period 2005-2010.

11

This sample of convenience is appropriate as the size of the company plays a vital

role in regard to environmental disclosure. A number of academics have argued that

there is a clear relationship between environmental disclosure and the size of the

company ( Hackston & Milne, 1996; Patten, 1991). Also, Deegan and Gordon

(1996), in their paper, have found that in the industries that are considered highly

environmentally sensitive (including the Oil and Gas industry) there is a positive

correlation between the size of the company and the environmental disclosure. In

addition, Deegan and Gordon (1996) state that large companies are more likely to

provide more voluntary environmental disclosures.

The time period of 2005 – 2010 was selected as it contemporises the study and

allows the researcher to gain access to recent and relevant data. This time period

also includes a period of two years before and after a change of government in

Federal Parliament. This change could have an effect on the environmental reporting

practice of organisations because both sides of the government might have different

levels of concern about the environment.

The data for this research will be extracted from the annual reports and other

corporate stand-alone reports of the selected organisations. This approach is

consistent with a number of previous empirical studies in the area of environmental

disclosures (see, for instance, Campbell, 2003; Clarkson et al. 2008; Cormier et al.

2005; Cowan & Gadenne, 2005; Harte & Owen, 1991; Hackston & Milne, 1996;

Buhr, 1998; Patten, 1991; Patten & Crampton, 2004; Wilmshurst & Frost, 2000).

These corporate reports are accessible through the website of the Australian Stock

Exchange (ASX).

12

1.2. Theoretical framework Several political economy theories, including legitimacy theory and stakeholder

theory (ethical and managerial branches), have been used in research on social and

environmental reporting since the 1970s (Unerman et al. 2007). Stakeholder theory

attempts to explain why companies publish social and environmental disclosures by

suggesting all stakeholders have the right to information about the organisation

including its impact on the environment, employment and community sponsorship

(Deegan, 2000). In particular, the ethical branch of stakeholder theory imputes the

possibility that companies which develop sound environmental reporting practices do

so for reasons that are disconnected from the mandated goal of the company to act

in the shareholders’ best interests (Deegan, 2000). Spence (2007) suggested that

corporate social and environmental reporting practices are derived from “some sort

of commercial imperative, articulated around the notion of the ‘business case’” (p.

864). This research, however will explore organisational environmental disclosure

practices, with specific reference to Australian companies in the extractive industry

sector using legitimacy theory. It is viewed that the organisation discloses

environmental information to manage and improve its image and gain the trust of the

community.

Legitimacy theory is recognised to be a system–oriented theory like stakeholder

theory; within system–oriented theory, organisations assume to have influences and

be influenced by the society in which it operates (Deegan, 2002). Legitimacy is seen

as one of the resources that an organisation is dependent upon for survival (Dowling

& Pfeffer, 1975; O’Donovan, 2002). Legitimacy theory suggests that if managers see

13

the supply of certain resource (legitimacy) as significant to the organisation, they will

ensure the continual supply of this resource (Deegan, 2009).

1.3. Research Methodology

The public concern about environmental issues in recent years is reporting

(Bebbington & Gray, 2001; Beck et al. 2010; Lamberton, 2005; Milne & Gray, 2007)

through Annual Reports and Sustainability Reports to convey environmental

performance information to stakeholders (Campbell, 2004; Campbell & Abdul

Rahman, 2010; Cowan & Gadenne, 2005). It has been noted that previous studies

sought to extract the data from Annual Reports and other stand-alone reports (see,

for example, Buhr, 1998; Campbell, 2003; Cowan & Gadenne, 2005; Hackston &

Milne, 1996; Harte & Owen, 1991; Patten, 1991; Patten & Crampton, 2004;

Wilmshurst & Frost, 2000). In these studies, different methodological approaches

have been adopted to study and analyse the corporate reports. The more common

approaches in analysing corporate reports are from the positivist and interpretative

approaches in accounting. According to Beck et al. (2010, p. 208), positivist

approaches “capture and describe a surrogate assumed to convey meaning and

reporting intent”, so the main focus of the studies according to this approach is on

frequency and volume.

The interpretative approach, on the other hand, seeks to understand and capture

meaning through dividing the narrative into its parts and then describing the content

of each component part (Beck et al. 2010; Cormier & Gordon, 2001; Milne et al.

2003; Wiseman, 1982). Interpretative studies aim to understand what is

communicated? (Beck et al. 2010). One of the goals of this research is to explore the

14

trend of environmental disclosures by organisations in the extractive industry sector.

This will be undertaken by adopting an interpretative approach of social science. The

method used to analysis the research data, annual reports and stand-alone

sustainability reports, is content analysis, which will be applied from an interpretative

perspective. The use of content analysis will be guided by the approach used by

Hackston and Milne, (1996) and Beck et al. (2010), as the approach utilised by these

authors is consistent with the research agenda of this study.

1.4. Thesis structure This thesis comprises six chapters. The following is an outline of each of the

chapters provided.

Chapter two discusses the related literature of this research as background. This

chapter is classified into five sections; the first section provides a brief overview of

the concept of environmental accounting. The second section explores the pattern of

corporate environmental disclosure and provides definitions of environmental

disclosure. This section also includes discussion on the two types of corporate

disclosure: mandatory disclosures and voluntary disclosures. The third section

explores the development of research in environmental accounting literature

including outlining the main trends of the environmental accounting research journey

since the early 1970s. The fourth section provides a review of empirical studies

undertaken in relation to environmental disclosure. The final section of this chapter

reviews some of environmental disclosure studies that have been done in Australia.

15

Chapter three focuses on the theoretical framework of this research. This chapter

provides a brief discussion on the theories which have been used in previous

corporate environmental disclosure research. From this discussion legitimacy theory

is identified as an appropriate theory to be used in this research to explain corporate

environmental disclosures. Furthermore, this chapter explains the role of corporate

reports as legitimation tricks and how environmental disclosures could be driven by

perceived need to respond to public expectations.

Chapter four provides discussion on an extractive industry as a researched

organisation, and then discusses the research methodology. This research starts

with providing a brief discussion of the extractive industry, the main focus of this

research being the oil and gas industry. This chapter outlines and explains the main

criteria used to select the sample used in this study. Chapter four includes

discussion of content analysis. This discussion covers key components of content

analysis including details regarding the unit of analysis, coding frame and categories,

and disclosure measurement.

Chapter five contains an empirical discussion of the corporate environmental

disclosure data. In this chapter, interpretative content analysis is applied to analyse

the corporate reports of the selected companies to explore their corporate

environmental disclosures. In the content analysis, sentences are used as a unit of

analysis to capture the environmental disclosures and these sentences are grouped

into identified categories and sub-categories that will be used to analyse the annual

and stand-alone reports. In this chapter, the result of content analysis is presented

for each company separately using tables and charts to provide clarity of the data

16

collected and the chosen grouping. The results are presented in three groups. The

first group presents the volume of corporate environmental disclosure for each

environmental category used in the analysis. The second group classifies the

corporate environmental disclosure of the company into three levels of details; level

1 (disclosure presented as a narrative), level 2 (disclosure presented quantitatively)

and level 3 (disclosure is presented both via narrative and quantitatively). The third

group, which presents the financial and non-financial information, is further classified

into two groupings based on whether the information disclosed is financial

information or non-financial information.

Chapter six is the conclusion of the study. This chapter includes a review of the

empirical work in chapter five, contributions of this study to the literature of

environmental disclosure as well as future research directions. The final section of

this chapter discusses some of the limitations of this study.

1.5. Conclusion Public concern and awareness about environmental issues has increased since the

1970s (Prothero & McDonagh, 1992; Simintiras et al. 1997). As a response to these

concerns, companies have been attempting to seriously take into account their

environmental and social impacts (Unerman et al. 2007). This increased concern of

the environment is reflected in the increase of social accountability, sustainability and

environmental reporting and has resulted in an increasing number of companies

have disclosed information related to social and environmental impacts of their

operations (Gray et al. 1996; Guthrie & Farneti, 2008; Rattanaphaphtham &

Kunsrison, 2011). Furthermore, there is a view that organisations continually attempt

17

to develop their social and environmental reporting because companies’ beliefs that

disclosure of environmental information is a key value of company

(Rattanaphaphtham & Kunsrison, 2011). This action is seen as a response to

community, government and stakeholders who are concerned about organisational

environmental performance (Beck et al. 2010; Parker, 2000a).

Consistent with the increase of public concern of environmental issues,

environmental accounting practice becomes an area of interest for the scholars in

the field of accounting research. The common question rises up among several

studies, is about the real motivation of behind the environmental disclosure.

Academic researchers sought to study environmental accounting from different

perspectives and also from different countries (developed and developing countries)

including Australia (see, for example, Andrew et al. 1989; Campbell, 2004; Disu &

Gray, 1998; Gray, 1993; Guthrie & Mathews, 1985; Harte & Owen, 1991; Hegde et

al. 1997; Rockness, 1985; Ullmann, 1985). A predominant number of these studies

focused on environmental disclosures (see, for example, Ahmed & Mousa, 2010;

Andrew et al. 1989; Beattie et al. 2004; Beck et al. 2010; Campbell, 2004; Deegan &

Gordon, 1996; Gray, 1993; Guthrie & Abeysekera, 2006; Guthrie & Mathews, 1985;

Hackston & Milne, 1996; Harte & Owen, 1991; Rockness, 1985; Ullmann, 1985).

A number of academics are critical of the extent to which environmental disclosure

reports render company transparent, instead suggesting that environmental

disclosure reports are driven more by other concerns (Rattanaphaphtham &

Kunsrison, 2011; Spence, 2007). Spence (2007) highlighted some of these factors

and described them as a business case. However, legitimacy appears to be the

major concern of companies, companies disclose environmental information in order

18

to improve their reputation among the community and gain legitimacy from the

society in which they operate. This research will adopt the legitimacy theory to

explore and interpret the environmental disclosures of Australian oil and gas

companies.

19

Chapter 2. Literature review In the previous chapter, a general background of this research was provided; it

discussed the importance of the environment and public concern about the

environment. Also, the last chapter contained a general discussion about

environmental accounting and its benefits then highlighted some challenges and

problems in environmental accounting and the need for more research in this area,

in particular of environmental disclosure. The introduced theoretical framework and

the methodology used in this research were introduced.

The social and environmental accounting literature has been shaped from a

community of researchers in the exploration of social and environmental disclosures

and the types of social and environmental information captured (Campble et al.

2006). In this regard, Clarkson et al. (2008) categorized the existing literature in

environmental accounting research into three broad groups. One of these groups is

the exploring and investigating environmental disclosure and its relation with the

environmental performance. It is been stated by Clarkson et al. (2008) that one of

the ongoing research issue in environmental accounting is that which related to

corporate environmental disclosures. Thus this chapter will attempt to provide a brief

overview of the literature on environmental accounting which could be viewed as a

general umbrella of the literature of environmental disclosures.

In this chapter, related literature will be reviewed in order to outline the background

of the fundamentals of this research. The related literature is classified into five parts.

The first part of the literature review is a general overview of environmental

accounting. It discusses environmental accounting in general and provides a brief

20

overview of the concept of environmental accounting. The second part is the pattern

of corporate environmental disclosure. This part provides some definitions of

environmental disclosure and discusses the two types of corporate disclosure

(mandatory disclosures and voluntary disclosure). Thirdly, the development of

research in environmental accounting literature is outlined and this part highlights the

main development of the environmental accounting research journey since the early

1970s. The fourth part gives a review of empirical studies and findings on

environmental disclosure research. The final part narrows the scope specifically to

the Australian context to review some of studies that have been undertaken in

Australia.

2.1. A general overview of environmental accounting There have been a number of academic conferences and accounting professionals

highlighting the concern about environmental problems and the damage that is

caused by the industrial sector (Bhate, 2001; Everett, 2004). The environment has

also received attention in non-academic conferences, such as The London and

Pittsburg Summits of the G20 Leaders (2009) and The United Nations Special

Summit on the Environment, held on 22 September 2009 (Firoz & Ansari, 2010),

which focussed on the link between environment and finance.

Environmental accounting has received universal consideration in the most important

journals in the field of accounting such as Accounting, Auditing & Accountability

Journal; Accounting, Organizations, & Society; Accounting & the Public Interest;

Critical Perspectives on Accounting; and European Accounting Review (Alewine,

2010). Most of these have discussed corporate environmental disclosures (Ahmad &

21

Mousa, 2010). Academic researchers have discussed environmental accounting and

published a number of papers from different approaches (as outlined by Burrell and

Morgan (1979), i.e. functionalist, interpretative and critical approach)1.

For better understanding of environmental accounting there is a necessity to provide

definitions of environmental accounting from different points of view. A number of

scholars have defined environmental accounting from different perspectives. Rogers

and Kristof (2003) have highlighted some of the concepts of environmental

accounting following on from prior researchers and studies. One of these definitions

is that environmental accounting is used to express a group of activities. An example

of these activities, as Rogers and Kristof (2003) mentioned, is an income statement.

Environmental accounting, according to this concept “means accounting for the

value of natural resources gained or lost relative to gross domestic product” (Rogers

& Kristof, 2003, p. 21). By this rationale, environmental accounting might be used to

recognise the financially material environmental liabilities of a company. However,

Rogers and Kristof (2003) in their article have defined the term of environmental

accounting as

…a subset of activity based costing. It isolates overhead costs and identifies the

activities that cause them, and then pulls them out of overhead by allocating

them to products based on usage (Rogers & Kristof 2003, p21).

Similarly, Stanko et al. (2006, p21) have portrayed environmental accounting as the

“identification, measurement, and allocation of environmental costs, the integration of

these environmental costs into business decisions, and the subsequent

1 In this research, it will not be demonstrated which studies are functionalist, interpretative or critical.

22

communication of the information to a company's stakeholders". Berr and Friend

(2006, p549) have defined “environmental accounting as the identification, allocation

and analysis of material streams and their related money flows by using

environmental accounting systems to provide insight in environmental impacts and

associated financial effects”. These definitions deliver a common understanding

about the conceptual nature of environmental accounting. Significantly, the

underlying fundament is that it has been important to distinguish accounting for the

environment and use this information in decision-making both internally and

externally. These definitions imply a powerful role for accountants in relation to

environmental reporting. In subsequent paragraphs, this aspect of a constructible

reality becomes a pivotal part of this research2.

More generally, Rahahleh (2011) gave a definition of accounting in relation to the

environmental perspectives which is “a science looking on how the environmental

aspects affect the conventional accounting system and whether it is an effective tool

to measure and evaluate the environmental aspects of facilities” (p. 127). Rahahleh

(2011) states that the main focus of this definition is that it distinguishes between

environmental accounting and the traditional accounting system. Also he discusses

the effective role that environmental accounting plays within the traditional

accounting system. “It also includes the process of selecting variables, standards

and procedures for measuring the social performance of the organisation and the

disclosure of the results to the involved parties in the community, whether such

parties were within or outside the facility” (Rahahleh 2011, p. 127). This role is

2 The idea of a constructible reality, referred to in the philosophical field of ontology or ‘being’ (Chua, 1986), known as social constructionism, is expanded on under the sub-heading “Methodology” and is now widely associated with a growing base of academic researchers in accounting. (see, for instance, Chua, 1986; Dillard, 1991; Morgan, 1988; Tinker et al. 1982).

23

comparable to the above definitions. Rahahleh (2011) further states that, within the

conventional accounting system, environmental accounting is an activity where

companies must select the most appropriate measures of social performance

including those variables, standards and procedures that reflect this performance.

This information must then be disclosed to users so they can make suitable

decisions. As with previous definitions, the above postulate, characterised by the use

of the word ‘select’, implies that environmental accounting is a socially constructed

and a socially constructing praxis. There are profound implications for the current

research agenda based on this conceptualisation because, although it may be

argued that the choice of accounting for environmental and social issues is

dominated by a “business case” (Spence, 2007), the ability to select the content

pertaining to environmental impacts may allow companies to pursue more altruistic

goals. The current research agenda will utilise the (managerial/ethical) branch of

stakeholder theory to understand the disclosure practices of the oil and gas

companies.

Shifting the focus, one aspect of environmental accounting places emphasis on

costs. Lodhia (2003, p. 717) provides a general concept of environmental accounting

which he defines as, “the accountants’ contribution towards environmental sensitivity

in organisations." In this article he states that the main fundamental aspect of

environmental accounting is that it should involve adding the environmental cost to

the total costs. In addition, Everett (2004) discussed the contribution of accountants

to business regarding environmental issues. This study showed how accountants in

Fiji address the environmental accounting issue within the traditional accounting

methods that focus on costs.

24

Social and environmental accounting might play a role in informing the community

about the use of its resources and the burdens (and benefits) firms have been

obliged to bear in major development decisions (Gray, 1992; Maunders & Burritt

1991). Furthermore, Rogers and Kristof (2003) mention that numerous companies

use environmental accounting “to illuminate the magnitude of previously hidden

environmental costs, and to allocate these costs to product lines in order to improve

decision making” (p. 22). According to Morgan (1988), environmental and social

accounting may involve reading, assessing, and understanding situations in a

manner which enables the creation of "intelligent, actionable insights, rather than to

produce rigid technical statements as ends in themselves" (p. 484). Also, Yakhou

and Dorweiler (2004) stress the importance of environmental accounting in the

accounting field, and they state that environmental accounting, by providing

environmental reports, can be an effective factor for internal and external users. The

environmental information is used by internal users for decision making, controlling

overhead and capital budgeting; also environmental accounting could be used to

disclose the information externally to the public and financial communities.

Through these functions, environmental accounting could provide benefits for both

the organisation and the society in which it operates (Rahahleh, 2011). The primary

benefit to organisations is that, by improving the company’s environmental

performance, there are foreseeable enhancements of economic performance

because the company becomes more attractive to investors (Rahahleh, 2011). In

addition, it helps the organisation to improve its competitive advantage by enhancing

its environmental performance as well as improving the reputation of the

25

organisation (Toms, 2002). Moreover, environmental accounting can provide the

country or government a significant economic benefit. By providing the information in

relation to the natural resources in the country, the government can make a suitable

plan for the resources in the future thus providing a form of sustainable

management. This will enable governments to allocate these resources and utilise

them in different ways to ensure that the most valuable investment will ensue.

Furthermore, through the information that is produced by environmental accounting,

governments can decipher the levels of environmental pollution, and then formulate

the decisions that can reduce and control this pollution – which is not just a

governmental concern but also a non-governmental concern (Rahahleh, 2011).

While these benefits are tenable, desirable and necessary, environmental

accounting has also faced several challenges and problems (Rahahleh, 2011;

Steadman et al. 1995).

Steadman et al. (1995) have highlighted three areas which present the greatest

challenges to environmental accounting. These areas are “the timing of the

disclosure, quantifying the estimate of the liability and the Income Statement

presentation of clean-up costs” (p. 53). The timing of the disclosure is important as

Steadman et al, (1995) discuss, because it could affect the decisions of the users:

“An improperly delayed disclosure would undermine the reliability and timeliness of

the financial information and lead to less efficient user decisions” (p. 53). The second

area of concern, quantifying the estimate of the liability, is very difficult to achieve.

However, as mentioned earlier, this goal is very important because the accountant

must attribute costs that reside outside the traditional bounds of financial accounting

(Rahahleh, 2011). Steadman et al. (1995) provide examples of some cost

26

components which are difficult to measure, including “cost of preferred clean-up

method, the availability of insurance reimbursement, and the time for clean-up

activities” (p. 53). The third area of concern, the presentation of clean-up costs in

financial statements, is problematic because it affects the traditional approach to

disclosure thus resulting in additional costs to the company. Furthermore, the

question of how such information is to be presented represents a challenge to both

researchers and report producers.

Qian and Burritt (2007) also highlighted numerous challenges of environmental

accounting. Firstly, capturing all the information, both financial and non-financial,

which relates to environmental problems (clean-up costs, gas emission). The

question raised here, in contrast to the question of ‘how’ to estimate environmental

costs in Steadman et al. (1995), is ‘what’ will be measured3. Secondly,

approximating possible future costs instead of accepting a historical cost orientation.

This asks ‘how’ we estimate environmental costs. Finally, there is a challenge

associated with identifying transactions with the environment, which currently lie

outside the scope of traditional accounting concepts. The above issues – timing,

estimating/quantifying and presentation – are potential avenues of future research.

Qian and Burritt (2007) also identified three features of environmental accounting;

firstly, accounting for direct monetary and the physical flow of information. This

means that environmental accounting has different dimensions. Environmental

accounting indicates a company cares about the environmental and economic 3 The issue of completeness of environmental information is an existing quandary and is addressed by authors such as Deegan & Rankin, 1996; Rattanaphaphtham & Kunsrison , 2011 . The most noteworthy point here is that, in accordance with the epistemological stance adopted by the researcher – reflected by the social constructionists (see footnote 2) – what is regarded as “complete” information may vary. This aspect is reflected in and drives the central concern of this research.

27

footprints and the responsibility of the organisation regarding them. Secondly,

accounting for environmental information hidden in overheads and future periods,

means that the environmental accounting information goes beyond the traditional

cost. It contains the hidden and future environmental cost, which has a relationship

with the operation process. Finally, accounting for environmental externalities is an

issue. This means that environmental accounting cares about the indirect external

environmental cost that happens outside the organisation. These might have impacts

on society and the environment such as human health effects associated with air

pollution, the running down of natural resources and damaging the ecological system

(Qian & Burritt, 2007). Likewise, Rahahleh (2011) introduced a serious issue in

environmental accounting regarding the physical accounting approach. He notes that

the physical accounting approach helps in determining the accounting measurement

for environmental activities. “The physical accounting structure depends on

organising a set of accounts in accordance with what has been referred to in

environment accounts evidence and in the natural resources, that shows changes in

the available balances of natural resources and the amounts used during the period”

(Rahahleh, 2011, p. 127).

Aside from conceptual definitions, and the difficulties faced by environmental

accounting theorists, Parker (2000b) outlines the significance and the importance of

environmental costs and the way environmental costs should be measured.

Environmental cost is one of the ways that organisations can motivate management

to provide information which is important for management decision making.

Environmental cost can be measured in two ways; the first way is the expense of the

environmental impacts; and the second is proactive preventative activities (Parker

28

2000b). Parker (2000b) identified the classification of the environmental cost such as

low and high visibility and environmental losses. In addition Parker (2000b) provided

some financial categories of the environmental cost, for example energy costs,

capital costs, waste management costs, fines and administration costs and how

these costs can be tracked.

For tracking and analysing the environmental cost, Corrigan (1998) suggested

several tools and ways to determine these costs. Firstly, an energy and material

tracking team which controls the flows of energy into the organisation. Second, an

environmental impact assessment identifies the environmental consequences of the

organisation. Thirdly, life cycle analysis and life cycle costing identifies the

environmental consequences of a product or services. Finally, external costing

generates monetised estimates of environmental damage and benefits created by an

organisation.

In the late 1990s environmental costs increased in businesses. Recognising high

costs presented a challenge to companies. The accounting departments therefore

became particularly relevant in the choice of whether or not to systematically

recognise and allocate these costs in order to generate information for management

decision-making (Zachry, et al. 1998). Zachry, et al. (1998) discussed environmental

site cost and the methods that are used to allocate these costs. Zachry, et al. (1998)

presented two methods to recognise the costs— “the first method accrues costs

currently for future estimated expenses; the second method takes a onetime charge

against earnings” (p. 71). In the extractive industries such as oil, gas and coal the

main method which is used for future environmental cost, is accrual of costs. In

29

contrast some businesses replace the accrual method by a one-time charge against

earnings because a one-time charge against earnings is more transparent than the

accrual method. Also the onetime charge against earnings method has some

advantages regarding financial reporting. These advantages are represented in two

points:

1. An environmental liability has to be reasonably expected and reliably

estimated before accounting guidelines require its accrual.

2. The second advantage is the expectation that the facility operates indefinitely,

so there is no end to the accrual and no funds would ever need to be spent.

(Zachry et al. 1998, p. 72).

2.2. The pattern of corporate environmental disclosure Environmental disclosure is a key step in applying environmental accounting. Cho,

Chen and Roberts (2008) mentioned some criteria which are important for

environmental disclosure. These criteria are that organisations have to disclose

financial information such as compliance costs, contingent liabilities and lawsuits,

and nonfinancial information, which relate to the environmental issues such as

sulphur dioxide emissions or toxic chemical spill.

Every organisation has to provide information to various users whether they are

internal users such as employees or external users such as government. This

information could be classified into two types— mandatory and voluntary. Mandatory

information is that which appears in the director’s report in accordance with the

requirements of corporations law. On the other hand, voluntary environmental

disclosures are those appearing in sections other than the directors’ report. The

30

voluntary sections of the report permit a greater amount of discretion to the

organisation in relation to the content of material included, as they are not mandatory

(Cowan & Gadenne, 2005).

2.2.1. Mandatory disclosure According to Cowan and Gadenne (2005), the mandatory information provides users

of the annual report with a factual account of the organisation's compliance with

regulations during the period of reporting. Also Cowan and Gadenne (2005) state

that the mandatory disclosures will place reporting companies in a position of

increased scrutiny. They observed that the material included in the Director’s Report

should command a different disclosure behaviour than that adopted in the voluntary

section.

2.2.2. Voluntary disclosure Voluntary disclosure is considered in the decision-making process of several user

groups. Organisations provide voluntary disclosure not only as a means to satisfy the

user’s right to know, but also as a way in which the organisation would be deemed

legitimate by society and subsequently reap the rewards of such legitimacy (Cowan

& Gadenne, 2005). This constitutes an effort on the management accountant’s

behalf to portray the most suitable information. Thus, according to Lee (2005, p 8)

"managerial accounting can help organisational managers determine how to

approach environmental reporting". Management accounting can be useful in the

control of environmental costs by providing a wealth of information, which is relevant

to the environmental issues and useful for decision–making. Furthermore, Lee

(2005) concludes that managerial accounting is the best way to reach the peak firm

31

performance. "An environmental management system is a management system that

aims to encourage an organisation to control its environmental impacts and reduce

such impacts continuously" (Jones et al. 2005, p. 213). This implies that voluntary

disclosure assumes a twofold objective.

2.3. Ongoing research in environmental accounting literature

More than four decades has passed since the concept of social and environmental

accounting was first introduced (see, for instance, Barnett & James, 1974; Dilley &

Weygandt, 1973; Mathews, 1997; Mobley, 1970). Since that time a huge number of

studies have been done in the environmental accounting area. Mathews (1997) has

provided a review of the wealth of literature of environmental accounting studies in

the period between 1971- 1995. According to Gray et al (1995a) the empirical

studies on environmental accounting covered different areas, developed countries

(see, for example, Gray, 1993; Guthrie & Mathews, 1985; Harte & Owen, 1991;

Rockness, 1985; Ullmann, 1985; Zeghal & Ahmed, 1990) including Australia

(Campbell, 2004) and developing countries (see, for example, Andrew et al. 1989;

Disu & Gray, 1998; Hegde et al. 1997; Teoh & Thong, 1984), adapted different

research methods such as content analysis, discourse analysis and case study (see,

for example, Deegan et al. 2002; Deegan & Rankin, 1996; Patten, 1991, Patten,

1992; Wiseman, 1982), and also covered several issues in environmental accounting

in different periods of time (see, for example, Belkaoui, 1976; Belkaoui & Karpik,

1989; Blacconiere & Patten, 1994; Fekrat et al. 1996; Gray et al. 1995b; Guthrie and

Parker, 1989; Hughes et al. 2000).

32

The early work started after the first mention of the subject of social and

environmental accounting in the 1970s (Barnett & James, 1974; Dilley & Weygandt,

1973; Mathews, 1997; Mobley, 1970). In that period of time, the social and

environmental accounting literature (SEAL) was underdeveloped, and the empirical

studies did not have a specific focus, the issue was developing methods to measure

the volume of information disclosure by organisations (Mathews, 1997). Also the

empirical studies as Mathews (1997) stated had a variety of motivations (see, for

instance, Abbott & Monsen, 1979; Belkaoui, 1976; Bowman & Haire, 1975; Dilley &

Weygandt, 1973; Grojer & Stark, 1977). Belkaoui (1976) was looking at the impact of

the disclosure of the environmental effects of organisational behaviour on the

market. Another study in the same time done by Bowman and Haire (1975)

investigated the relationship between social responsibility disclosures and increased

income to the corporation. The result was that the highest return on equity was

associated with a medium level of social responsibility disclosures. Grojer and Stark

(1977) in their study gave explicit consideration to development of a goal-oriented

report with numerous constituencies, mainly employees. Abbott and Monsen (1979)

were comparing a social involvement disclosure scale rating with total returns to

investors over the period 1964-1974 when they found that there was no meaningful

effect from a study of 450 corporations in the 1975 Fortune 500 list.

The most common outcomes of the early studies were “yes” or “no” to the existence

of the disclosed information related to the social element of accounting, most

frequently the information related to employees or product (Ernst & Ernst, 1972-

1978; Grojer & Stark, 1977). Also, at that time the concerns about the environment

33

were not detected, whether by managers, accountants, or the majority of other

observers (Ernst & Ernst, 1972-1978). The “yes” or “no” analysis was expanded over

time to include volume measurement (pages, lines, words, etc.) in particular areas,

which in turn brought issues of subjectivity (what should be included and what should

not be, and resultant issues of replicability) (Mathews, 1997).

Later in the 1980s, many changes were highlighted regarding the focus of the

literature in regard to social and environmental accounting, with growing signs of

specialism. For instance, employee reports and value-added statements attracted a

separate group of adherents in the early 1980s (Burchell et al. 1985; Mathews,

1997). That period also highlighted the decline of a general concern of social

disclosure and instead more focus has been provided to the environmental

disclosure and regulation as another means of reducing environmental damage

(Mathews, 1997). The period of the 1980s also showed that the academic work had

been changed in direction and sophistication since 1981—empirical studies which

continued to study the incidence of social accounting disclosures (which is mixed

with the disclosures relating to the environment) have changed toward seeking some

explanation of the source, direction and type of disclosures (Belkaoui & Karpik, 1989;

Guthrie & Mathews, 1985; Mathews, 1997; Trotman & Bradley, 1981). Also, the

researchers have paid greater attention at that time to methodology in order to

reduce the issue of subjectivity and increase the replicability of content analysis,

which were the main issues in the1970s (Belkaoui & Karpik, 1989; Guthrie &

Mathews, 1985; Mathews, 1997; Rockness, 1985; Trotman & Bradley, 1981;

Ullmann, 1985).

34

This time also had a number of a criticisms of content analysis studies because the

work was seen just as seeking to report only what exists, or has existed, without

reference to a normative position for what should be ( Mathews, 1997; Rockness,

1985). In addition, there were a limited number of researchers concerned with the

theoretical basis in the 1980s (see, for instance, Logsdon, 1985; Mathews, 1984;

Mathews, 1997). Mathews (1984) introduced a model to classify the social oriented

disclosures; this could be seen as an early step for the division of environmental

accounting from social accounting. Logsdon (1985) also proposed a model for the oil

industry, which could predict the response of the organisation toward environmental

issues.

Empirical studies in environmental accounting were continually growing in the 1990s,

and environmental accounting dominated over social accounting (Mathews, 1997).

Also, in the 1990s it has been highlighted that there was a significant increase in the

number of environmental accounting studies, which was reflected in several

academic journals providing specific issues (see, for instance, Accounting Auditing &

Accountability Journal, 1991 and Accounting Forum, 1995) for researchers to publish

their findings (see, for example, Deegan et al. 1995; Gibson & Guthrie, 1995; Harte

& Owen, 1991; Roberts, 1991). In addition, environmental accounting studies

changed in another direction— theoretical framework, researchers at that time

started to look for an appropriate theory to explain their findings (see, for example,

Nue et al. 1998; Patten, 1992). Several theories had been used at that time to

explain environmental disclosure, such as political economy theory, stakeholder

theory and legitimacy theory (see, for example, Arnold, 1990; Patten, 1991; Patten,

1992; Roberts, 1992).

35

In the 1990s period, other areas of research such as sustainability and

environmental auditing had been raised (see, for instance, Batley & Tozer, 1993;

Geno, 1995; Gray & Collison, 1991; Tozer & Mathews, 1994). Stone (1995) has

provided an argument about the role of management accounting in assisting with

sustainability development.

In regard to research methodology, although content analysis had some critical

issues regarding its limitations in the 1980s, in the 1990s it was still the dominant

research method used by researchers to study the corporate environmental

disclosure (see, for example, Deegan & Gordon, 1996; Hackston & Milne, 1996;

Milne & Adler, 1999).

During the last decade, environmental accounting has become the area of interest

for many academic researchers, and the number of studies in the area of

environmental accounting has significantly increased. A study that has been done by

O’Connor (2006) argued that there has been a significant increase in the depth of

empirical work being undertaken in the last decade, evidenced by (a) a growing

number of empirical studies trying to explain social and environmental reporting

practice; (b) a growing number of studies which sought to examine the faithfulness of

social and environmental reporting practice; (c) the appearance of a number of

studies which have sought to set up the degree to which social and environmental

accounting is leading to organisational change; and (d) a significant increase of

empirical studies using multiple sources of data.

36

This period of time as noted above, underlined new areas of interest, such as

environmental performance, the quality of the environmental disclosure and the role

of the media (see, for instance, Cormier et al. 2005; Deegan et al. 2000; Patten,

2002; Toms, 2002). Deegan et al. (2000) have argued that media plays a vital role in

driving the community perception. If media coverage of a particular environmental

incident was extensive, then the media coverage had the ability to influence or shape

community perceptions about this incident. Patten (2002) examined the relationship

between the environmental disclosures and the environmental performance as

based on toxics release data from 1988 for a sample of 131 US companies. Another

study by Toms (2002) was motivated by environmental performance when he tried to

examine the relationship between environmental disclosure and environmental

reputation. Cormier et al. (2005) in their study sought to identify determinants of

corporate environmental disclosure using multi-theoretical lenses that rely on public

pressures, economic incentives and institutional theory. Further studies continuously

tried to explore the managerial motivations and determinants for the environmental

disclosure practice. According to Owen (2008) several studies point to a range of

elements as powerful disclosure drivers. Examples of these elements are the size of

the organisation and ownership status (Cormier & Gordon, 2001), and public profile

(Campbell et al. 2006).

Deegan (2002) stated that there has been an increase in the number of the

theoretical frameworks in the field of environmental accounting and he also identified

that there was an overlap in environmental accounting theories. From

methodological side, content analysis has still been used by a number of

researchers to study environmental reports and annual reports. Examples of these

37

researchers are: (Adnan et al. 2011; Beattie et al. 2004; Beck et al. 2010; Deloitte &

Van Staden, 2011; Guthrie & Abeysekera, 2006; Kaur & Lodhia, 2011). It can be

seen that content analysis is a leading method for collecting and studying the

empirical evidence in the field of environmental accounting (Guthrie & Abeysekera,

2006; Parker, 2005).

2.4. Empirical research in environmental disclosure

It is over four decades later and environmental disclosure has been an area of

interest for many academic researchers; some of the earliest studies were those

done by Ernst and Ernst, (1972-1978) and Grojer and Stark (1977). To date, a

significant number of studies have been done, covering different countries;

industrialised countries (see, for example, Beattie et al. 2004; Beck et al. 2010;

Bewley & Li, 2000; Campbell, 2004; Deegan & Gordon, 1996; Gray, 1993; Guthrie &

Abeysekera, 2006; Guthrie & Mathews, 1985; Hackston & Milne, 1996; Harte &

Owen, 1991; Rockness, 1985; Ullmann, 1985; Zeghal & Ahmed, 1990), and

unindustrialised countries (see, for example, Ahmed & Mousa, 2010; Andrew et al.

1989; Baxi & Ray, 2009; Belal, 2000; Disu & Gray, 1998; Hegde et al. 1997; Teoh &

Thong, 1984). The studies which have been done in the developed countries, are

more advanced than those which were done in the developing countries. In the

developing countries the focus of the studies was upon whether the companies

disclosed the environmental information or not and the quantity of this information

(Ahmed & Mousa, 2010; Baxi & Ray, 2009; Belal, 2000). In contrast, in the

developed countries, the researchers went beyond that limited focus and started to

provide an advanced investigation of environmental disclosure. Several researchers

38

investigated the determinants and the quality of the environmental disclosure and

others investigated the relationships between the environmental disclosure and the

economic and environmental performance (see, for example, Beattie et al. 2004;

Beck et al. 2010; Bewley & Li, 2000; Campbell, 2004; Clarkson et al. 2004; Cormier

et al. 2005; Guthrie & Abeysekera, 2006; Hackston & Milne, 1996).

In Libya, an example of a developing country, there is a study that has been done by

Ahmed (2004) who sought to examine the corporate environmental disclosure in

Libya in the period between1998 - 2001. According to his results, there was not any

evidence to support the existence of corporate environmental disclosure in both

terms of quantity and quality. Following this study and in the Libyan context also,

Ahmed and Mousa (2010) examined the extent of corporate environmental

disclosure, by using content analysis to investigate the corporate environmental

disclosure practices by the 18 largest industrial companies quoted by the Industrial

and Mineralisation Secretary (IMS) in Libya. They found that the corporate

environmental disclosure practice in Libya has been improved and they used the

political economic theory to explain their results. In another study in environmental

disclosure in Nigeria, Disu and Gray (1998) used content analysis to analyse the

annual reports of the 22 largest companies quoted on the Nigerian stock exchange

in the period of 1994-1995. Their conclusion was that less than 25 per cent of the

companies under the study have made environmental disclosures. Also, Kisenyi and

Gray (1998) studied the environmental disclosure in Uganda, seeking to describe

and analyse the social and environmental disclosures in a sample of leading

Ugandan companies. They found that environmental disclosure in Uganda was still

at a low level and it needed greater attention.

39

In the Asian context there are some studies that have been done in environmental

disclosure (see, for example, Andrew et al. 1989; Belal, 2000; Dasgupta et al. 2006;

Elijido-Ten, 2008; Elijido-Ten, 2009; Elijido-Ten et al. 2010; Hegde et al. 1997;

Singh & Ahuja, 1983; Teoh & Thong, 1984; Tsang, 1998; Choi, 1999). A major

number of these studies conducted in the Malaysian context, which contributed in

the Malaysian literature of environmental disclosure (see, for instance, Andrew et al.

1989; Elijido-Ten, 2008; Elijido-Ten, 2009; Elijido-Ten et al. 2010; Teoh & thong,

1984). Teoh and Thong (1984) examined the corporate social responsibility

reporting of Malaysian companies and one of their results was that employee related

activities had been the main focus of disclosure. Also, companies with major foreign

ownership were better in social reporting than Malaysian-owned companies. Andrew

et al (1989) conducted content analysis to analyse the 119 annual reports of listed

Malaysian companies, the result was that company size is a significant variable in

social disclosure. An advanced research has been done by Elijido-Ten (2009) to

examine the influence of the stakeholder on the improvement of environmental

accountability and reporting in Malaysia. Elijido-Ten (2009) indicated that the level of

environmental awareness is still low in Malaysia. Most recently, a study done by

Elijido-Ten et al. (2010), through conducted interviews, sought to provide insights

into expectations of stakeholders regarding the types of disclosure a company

should make. Elijido-Ten et al. (2010) concluded that the most preferred type of

disclosure is for the companies to “defend” the reasons behind the environmental

event and/or explain what has been done to rectify the situation.

40

Far from the Malaysian context, a study has been done by Tsang (1998) who

examined the social and environmental reporting in Singapore by studying the

annual reports of 33 companies listed on the Stock Exchange of Singapore under

banking, food and beverages and hotel industries during a ten-year period (1986-

1995). Tsang (1998) concluded that only 17 companies provided social and

environmental disclosure and there was a steady increase in disclosure highlighted

in the late 1980s and then a stable level of disclosure since 1993. Belal (2000)

investigated the environmental disclosure practice in Bangladesh and studied 30

recent corporate annual reports of Bangladeshi companies relating to the year 1996.

Belal (2000) concluded that the environmental disclosure of Bangladeshi companies

was poor and satisfactory in terms of both quantity and quality. Also, Dasguta et al.

(2006) studied the reaction of investors toward the list of enterprises, that failed to

comply with national environmental laws and regulations, which the Ministry of

Environment of the Republic of Korea had published. Their results showed that

investors on the Korean Stock Exchange had a significant reaction toward the

disclosure of such news and the decline in market value was much higher than the

estimated changes in market value for comparable events in Canada and the United

States.

In contrast, empirical research in the area of environmental disclosure in developed

countries is broader in term of focus and investigates several issues associated with

environmental disclosure. In developed countries, the researchers started to provide

an advanced investigation of the environmental disclosure. A major number of

studies investigated the determinants associated with the decision of making

environmental disclosure and others investigated the relationships between the

41

environmental disclosure and the economic and environmental performance (see, for

example, Beattie et al. 2004; Beck et al. 2010; Berthelot et al, 2003; Bewley & Li,

2000; Campbell, 2004; Clarkson et al, 2004; Cormier et al. 2005; Guthrie &

Abeysekera, 2006; Hackston & Milne, 1996). In subsequent paragraphs, empirical

studies and findings of environmental disclosure will be presented in relation to the

decision of making environmental disclosure and the relationships between

environmental disclosure and the economic and environmental performance of a

company.

Many researchers have conducted environmental disclosure studies in order to

investigate the factors and determinants that could encourage or enforce companies

to produce environmental disclosure (see, for instance, Adnan et al. 2011; Berthelot

et al. 2003; Bewley and Li, 2000; Cormier & Gordon, 2001; Cormier & Morgan, 2003;

Cormier et al. 2005; Deloitte, 2011; Hackston & Milne, 1996; Patten, 1991; Patten,

1992; Ribeiro & Aibar-Guzman, 2010;). Patten (1991) investigated whether corporate

social disclosure is related to public pressure or a company’s profitability. The finding

supported the claim that the company’s size and industry membership were

significant variables to explain social disclosure, whereas profitability was not. In

another study Patten (1992) examined the influence of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on

environmental disclosure of other petroleum companies. The results highlighted a

major increase in environmental disclosure that is related to company size and

ownership in the Alaska Pipeline Company Service. Consistent with this research,

Hackston & Milne (1996) investigate the determinants of the social and

environmental disclosure practices of a sample of listed New Zealand companies.

Their findings reported that the majority of the social and environmental disclosures

42

of New Zealand companies tend to be narrative and good news. The quantity of

social disclosure averaged about 75% of an annual report page. The finding was

also consistent with other studies, showing that both size and industry are significant

variables associated with the amount of social and environmental disclosure, while

profitability is not. In other words, larger companies are expected to disclose more

environmental information than smaller companies.

A study by Bewley and Li (2000) indicated that environmental disclosure is positively

affected by three factors; if the company is subject to extensive news media

coverage of their environmental management, if the company exhibit higher pollution

propensity, and if the company shows a greater political exposure. According to

Cormier and Gordon (2001) who investigated the voluntary social and environmental

disclosure of three electric utilities—one privately owned and two publicly owned,

public companies provide more social and environmental information than private

companies and large size companies are more likely to disclose more information.

They also concluded that environmental disclosure is related to information costs

and benefits. In Cormier and Morgan’s (2003) study, which investigated the

determinants of corporate environmental reporting, the findings suggested that

additional to the company size, information costs and media visibility determine

corporate environmental reporting, and industry specific reporting patterns are also

apparent. In the Portuguese context Ribeiro and Aibar-Guzman (2010) found that

company size and the degree of development of environmental management

practices are both positively and statistically related to the level of development of

environmental accounting practices in Portuguese local entities. Adnan et al. (2011)

in their paper, which aimed to provide data on Corporate Social Responsibility CSR

43

reporting practices of large companies working in socially and environmentally

sensitive industries in four countries: China, India, Malaysia and the UK, examined if

culture works together with the governance structure and government ownership in

influencing the quantity and quality of CSR disclosure. They concluded that in China,

the quality and quantity of CSR disclosures improved considerably with the existence

of CSR board committees, where the culture is one of collectivism, rather than of

individualism. They also found that public-owned companies in Malaysia provide

CSR disclosure of a higher quality than private owned companies. Deloitte (2011)

investigated the motivations beyond the disclosure of social and environmental

information in New Zealand. He found that the driving force for a sustainability

agenda is usually a member of senior management. Also, public concerns and

shareholder rights are the most significant reasons that influence a company’s

decision to disclose social and environmental information.

Other studies investigated the relationships between environmental disclosure and

environmental performance (see, for example, Clarkson et al. 2008; Fekrat et al.

1996; Freedman & Wasley, 1990; Hughes et al. 2000; Ingram & Frazier, 1980;

Patten, 2002; Rockness, 1985; Toms, 2002;). In their study, Ingram and Frazier

(1980) investigated the relationship between corporate environmental disclosure and

corporate environmental performance. Their findings supported the view that there

was no considerable association between corporate environmental disclosure and

corporate environmental performance, which was measured by the Council for

Economic Priorities (CEP). This is consistent with Ingram and Frazier (1980), and

other studies by Rockness (1985), Freedman and Wasley (1990) and Fekrat et al.

(1996), who examined the relationship between corporate environmental disclosure

44

and corporate environmental performance. They found that corporate environmental

disclosure is not significantly correlated with corporate environmental performance

indices of the company as published by the Council for Economic Priorities (CEP).

In contrast, Patten (2002) examined the relationship between environmental

disclosures in a 1990 annual report for a sample of 131 US companies and their

environmental performance as based on toxics release data from 1988. Research by

Patten (2002) indicated that there is a significant negative relationship between a

company’s environmental performance and a company’s environmental disclosure

for the sample companies. However, the level of environmental disclosure of

companies from non-environmentally sensitive industries is affected more by toxic

release levels than in the disclosure of companies from environmentally sensitive

industries. In another study by Toms (2002), it was suggested that implementation,

monitoring and disclosure of environmental policies and information in the

company’s annual reports contribute significantly to the creation of environmental

reputation of the company. Most recently, empirical analysis has been completed by

Clarkson et al. (2008) to investigate the relation between environmental performance

and environmental disclosure. Their conclusion was that there is a positive

association between environmental performance and the level of environmental and

social disclosures in a company’s annual reports.

A considerable number of studies focus on the relationship between environmental

disclosure and economic performance (see, for example, Blacconiere & Patten,

1994; Clarkson et al. 2004; Magness, 2002; Murray et al. 2006; Richardson &

Welker, 2001; Shane & Spicer, 1983). Shane and Spicer (1983), have done research

45

to investigate the association between the movement of the stock prices and

environmental disclosures. They highlighted that there was a decline in the stock

prices of the polluting companies, which were named by the Council on Economic

Priorities (CEP). Blacconiere and Patten (1994) examined the market reaction of

chemical companies to Union Carbide’s chemical leak in Bhopal, in India in 1984.

The result was that a significant negative intra-industry reaction arose. However,

companies which had more extensive environmental disclosures in their annual

financial report before the chemical leak, experienced a less negative reaction than

those with less extensive environmental disclosures. Another study by Cormier and

Magnan (2001) investigated the relationship between corporate environmental

disclosure and stock market value. This study showed that there is no great an

association between corporate environmental disclosure and share prices.

Richardson and Welker (2001) studied the relationship between corporate social and

environmental disclosure and the cost of equity capital. They found a positive

relationship between them that is moderated by a company’s return on equity—more

profitable companies are penalised less for social and environmental disclosure.

Magness (2002) conducted a study on Canadian companies listed on the Toronto

Stock Exchange to investigate the relationship between corporate environmental

disclosure and stock market value after the Placer Dome ecological accident. The

result highlighted that there was a decrease in the stock prices of the Canadian gold

mining companies after the Placer Dome accident and companies which disclosed

some environmental concerns exhibited a less severe drop. Clarkson et al. (2004)

concluded that several elements, such as contingent environmental liabilities,

environmental capital expenditures, fines and penalties, directly affected the future

46

earnings of the company. Another study by Murray et al. (2006) studied the UK’s

largest companies to investigate whether there is a relationship between social and

environmental disclosure and the financial market performance of these companies.

The result indicated that there is no direct relationship between share returns and

social and environmental disclosure.

2.5. Environmental disclosure in Australia Australia, for many years, has been considered an interesting target for many

academic researchers in the field of social and environmental accounting. Since the

1970s several empirical studies have been completed in the Australian context (see,

for instance, Anderson, 1980; Trotman, 1979). In the late 1970s these studies

became quite advanced (Mathews, 1997). Trotman (1979) conducted a study on the

largest companies listed on the Sydney Stock Exchange to examine the social

responsibility disclosures of these companies. The result showed an increase in the

incidence of social disclosures by the largest corporations. On the same topic of

social responsibility, Anderson (1980) investigated the attitudes of chartered

accountants to social responsibility disclosure in annual reports by surveying

Australian chartered accountants. The finding indicated that Australian chartered

accountants support the disclosure of social responsibility data in annual reports.

Trotman and Bradley (1981) examined some of the characteristics of 207 Australian

companies, which could be associated with their disclosures of social responsibility

information. They found a positive association between the amount of the disclosure

of social responsibility information and the size of the company, the degree of social

restrictions faced by the company and the importance that the company placed on

the long term in making decisions.

47

The period post 1995 saw a significant increase in the number of empirical studies in

environmental disclosure practice in Australia. Deegan and Gordon (1996) analysed

the environmental disclosure practice of Australian companies. They highlighted a

number of findings including; (1) the amount of voluntary environmental disclosures

is typically low in Australia, (2) environmental disclosure is positive information

(typically self-laudatory), with a small amount or no negative information, (3) the

period 1988 to 1991 showed an increase in environmental disclosures, which is

positively associated with increases in environmental group membership, (4) the

level of corporate environmental disclosure is positively associated with

environmental sensitivity and (5) there is a positive relationship between

environmental disclosures and company size. In the same year, Deegan and Rankin

(1996) conducted another study on 20 Australian companies, which were the subject

of successful prosecution by the New South Wales and Victorian Environmental

Protection Authorities in 1990-1993. Consistent with Deegan and Gordon (1996),

Deegan and Rankin (1996) found that Australian companies only disclosed and

provided environmental information which was favourable to their corporate image.

The result also indicated an important increase in the reporting of favourable

environmental information surrounding environmental prosecution, which is

consistent with legitimation motivation.

Tilt (1997) investigated the major influences of Australian companies on the

Corporate Environmental Policy (CEP). Tilt (1997) found that Australian companies

are interested in the environment and the level of environmental awareness of

businesses, specifically with the mining and chemical industries, is increasing. Also,

48

the result indicated that a company’s policy development and environmental

activities are majorly influenced by environmental law (or the threat of environmental

law). Later, Tilt and Symes (1999) studied the environmental disclosure made by

Australian mining companies. Their result showed an increase in environmental

disclosure of Australian mining companies in annual reports which could be

explained by the inclusion of mine site rehabilitation information. A high proportion of

this disclosure appears in the financial statement in the form of a provision for

rehabilitation account. The result also showed the usefulness of tax incentives as an

enabling tool to encourage more environmentally aware behaviour in companies. Tilt

(2000) did another study in relation to the CEP to investigate the association

between CEPs of Australian public companies and subsequent reporting and

disclosure associated with that policy found in their annual reports. Tilt’s (2000)

finding showed that Australian companies seem to be lagging behind other countries

such as the US in disclosure of policies and environmental reporting trends, and

thus in their general commitment to the environment. Also, the results highlighted

some major differences between the content of their environmental policies and their

environmental disclosures. A more important finding is that Australian companies do

not pay great attention to disclosing environmental performance data to external

parties, instead companies report on the environment internally.

Wilmshurst and Frost (2000) surveyed chief finance officers (CFOs) of 500

Australian companies in environmentally sensitive industries (chemical, mining and

resources, oil gas and petroleum, transport/tourism, manufacturing, construction,

and food and household), to examine the linkage between the importance of some

factors in the managerial decision to disclose environmental information and actual

49

reporting practices. The results indicated that the stakeholders’ or investors’ right to

information were the most important factors. Also, the results provided a limited

support for the applicability of legitimacy theory to explain the decision to disclose

environmental information. To investigate this limitation of legitimacy theory,

O’Donovan (2002) conducted a study on three large Australian companies from

different industries; mining (BHP Ltd), chemical (Orica Ltd) and paper and pulp

(Amcor Ltd) industries. He interviewed six senior managers of these companies. The

purpose of the study was to “extend the applicability and predictive power of

legitimacy theory by investigating to what extent annual report disclosures are

interrelated to: attempts to gain, maintain and repair legitimacy; and the choice of

specific legitimation tactics” (O’Donovan, 2002, p. 344). The finding supported

legitimacy theory as an appropriate theory to explain corporate environmental

disclosure, and the choice of specific legitimation strategy as a response to the

environmental event based upon whether the company's aim is to gain, maintain or

repair legitimacy. In relation to the legitimacy theory and the extractive industry,

Deegan et al. (2002) studied the environmental disclosure of BHP (as the largest

Australian company) in the period between 1983 and 1997, in order to test legitimacy

theory and to provide an insight into the type of environmental disclosure. The result

supported legitimacy theory as an appropriate explanation for corporate

environmental disclosure; also they found a positive association between the public’s

concern about social and environmental issues and BHP’s annual reports disclosure

on these issues.

Another empirical research project to investigate corporate environmental disclosure

has been completed by Cowan and Gadenne (2005). They analysed annual report

50

disclosure practices of twenty-five Australian companies, which were considered as

environmentally sensitive within the combined voluntary and mandatory

environmental disclosure system. The study indicated that Australian listed

companies tend to disclose higher levels of positive environmental information in the

voluntary parts rather than in the mandatory parts of their annual reports. Consistent

with the criteria of environmentally sensitive, which is used by Deegan and Gordon

(1996), Frost and Wilmshurst (2000) and Cowan and Gadenne (2005), Frost (2007)

conducted a study of seventy-one Australian companies listed under resources

(mining, oil and gas), utilities and infrastructure, or paper and packaging industries

on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX). The purpose of the study was to examine

the impact of the introduction of mandatory reporting guidelines on the environmental

disclosures of these companies. Frost’s (2007) results indicated that an important

increase has been highlighted in the number of companies reporting and the level of

environmental information supplied on environmental performance. This increase

was linked to the introduction of s. 299(1) (f). Also, the finding indicated a significant

increase in the level of environmental disclosure particularly for the companies that

reported breaches of regulations and that did not issue a stand-alone environmental

report.

Moving to stakeholder theory, Elijido-Ten (2007) sought to use stakeholder theory to

analyse corporate environmental behaviour by the top 100 Australian companies in

environmental performance according to BRW. The finding suggested that the

factors of shareholder power, government power and the management’s concern for

the environment are significant in influencing the management decision to

incorporate greater environmental activities in corporate strategic plans. Also,

51

findings indicated that there is no significant association between economic

performance and the company’s environmental performance. Concerning the

stakeholder, Kaur and Lodhia (2011) analysed sustainability/ State of

Environment/annual reports of 558 Australian local councils (city, shire, district,

borough and regional) for the year 2009-10. The purpose of the analysis was to look

at the state and level of disclosure on stakeholder engagement in sustainability

reporting of local councils in Australian. Kaur and Lodhia (2011) suggested that

stakeholder engagement plays a vital role in the development of sustainability

reporting because it conveys the concerns, issues and aspirations of the key

stakeholders to the reporters. Clarkson et al. (2011) analysed the annual reports of

51 Australian companies that reported to the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI) in

both 2002 and 2006. They aimed to examine how Australian companies voluntarily

disclosed both the level and the nature of environmental information related to their

underlying environmental performance. They suggested that in the Australian

context concerns about the reliability of voluntary environmental disclosures continue

to be valid and thus potentially signal a need for both enhanced mandatory reporting

requirements and improved enforcement.

In general, in Australia researchers in the area of environmental disclosures have

covered different topics and issues, and most of them have applied legitimacy theory

or stakeholder theory to explain their findings. The common factor between these

studies is the sample selection. A great number of these studies used

environmentally sensitive industries as the main criteria to select the researched

industries which were considered to be chemical, mining and resources, oil gas and

petroleum, transport, manufacturing, construction, food and household, utilities and

52

infrastructure, paper and packaging industries (see, for instance, Cowan & Gadenne,

2005; Deegan & Gordon, 1996; Frost & Wilmshurst, 2000; Frost, 2007). This in turn

does not give a close insight into each industry. Thus, the present study will

specifically focus on one of these industries —the oil and gas industry which is one

of the most environmentally sensitive industries (Deegan & Gordon, 1996).

2.6. Conclusion

Environmental accounting is the “identification, measurement, and allocation of

environmental costs, the integration of these environmental costs into business

decisions, and the subsequent communication of the information to a company's

stakeholders"( Stanko et al. 2006, p. 21). Similarly, Berr and Friend (2006) have

defined “environmental accounting as the identification, allocation and analysis of

material streams and their related money flows by using environmental accounting

systems to provide insight in environmental impacts and associated financial effects”

(p. 549). Social and environmental accounting provides benefits for both firms and

communities (Gray, 1992; Maunders & Burritt 1991; Rahahleh, 2011) and has faced

several challenges and problems (Rahahleh, 2011; Steadman et al. 1995).

Capturing all the information, both financial and non-financial, which relates to

environmental problems and conveying it to stakeholders is one of these issues

(Steadman et al. 1995). Lee (2007) concluded that the most problematic risks in the

extractive industry are those associated with the environmental impacts of the

company’s operations. Rattanaphaphtham & Kunsrison (2011) also state that the

quality of disclosure of environmental information might affect the interpretation by

53

stakeholders and enhance investor confidence. There is further evidence4 which

demonstrates that companies disclose and release just the good news about their

environmental performance and they ignore the bad news and their impacts on the

environment. By other word, companies are less transparent and disclose using

rhetorical spin. Deegan & Rankin (1996) examined the environmental reporting

practices of 20 Australian companies and found most of the companies disclose just

the positive, favourable environmental information to improve their image and

reputation. Several academics studied and investigated different issues in

environmental accounting that has received universal consideration in the most

important journals in the field of accounting; most of them have discussed corporate

environmental disclosures (Ahmad & Mousa, 2010).

In Australia, different topics and issues in environmental disclosure have been

covered by researchers, who mostly applied legitimacy theory or stakeholder theory

to explain their findings. A large number of these studies used environmentally

sensitive industries as the main criteria to select the researched industries; this in

turn does not give a close insight into each industry. Thus, the present study will

specifically focus on one industry, the oil and gas industry as one of the most

environmentally sensitive industries (Deegan & Gordon, 1996).

4 See, for example, Deegan and Rankin, 1996; Deloitte, 2011; Spence, 2007.

54

Chapter 3. Theoretical framework The last chapter discussed the previous literature on corporate environmental

disclosure. It started with a general overview on the literature of environmental

accounting and then discussed the pattern of corporate environmental disclosure.

The third part of the last chapter included a discussion of ongoing research in

environmental accounting literature. The fourth part reviewed the empirical studies

and findings in relation to environmental disclosure. Finally, the last chapter

discussed some of the studies have been done in the Australian context.

In this chapter, the theoretical framework, that will be used to drive the analysis of

the data, will be explained. The chapter starts with a section of brief introduction; this

section will provide an overview on the theories that are commonly used in corporate

environmental disclosure research such as political economic theory, institutional

theory and stakeholder theory. Then, a detailed discussion of legitimacy theory, as

an appropriate theory to explain corporate environmental disclosure, will be

highlighted. The following sections discuss how organisations use corporate reports

as legitimation tricks and how corporate environmental disclosure can be perceived

as a response to public pressures. Lastly, this chapter will provide some implications

of legitimacy theory in the area of environmental accounting research.

3.1. Brief Introduction It has been highlighted in the previous literature that there are different theories that

have been adopted to drive research. According to O’Leary (1985, P. 88) “theorists'

own values or ideological predispositions may be among the factors that determine

which side of the argument they will adopt in respect of disputable connections of a

55

theory with evidence”. This means that researchers still have a space for their own

judgements to participate in the choice of the theoretical perspective (Deegan,

2009). So as Deegan (2009) states, different researchers could adapt several

theories to study the same issues.

Referring to the area of corporate environmental disclosure and social responsibility

information, several theories have been selected in the prior work to inform the data

analysis. Examples of these theories are; positive accounting theory (see for

example, Ness & Mirza, 1991), stakeholder theory (see, for example, Elijido-Ten et

al. 2010; Liu & Anbumozhi, 2009; Swift, 2001), institutional theory (see for example,

Cormier et al, 2005) and legitimacy theory (see, for example, Deegan & Radkin,

1996; Deegan et al. 2002; Patten, 1992). Of the many other theories, stakeholder

theory, institutional theory and legitimacy theory are the common theories used to

explain the environmental disclosure and reporting practice (Deegan, 2009;

Unerman et al. 2007). These three theories (stakeholder, institutional and legitimacy

theory) could be classified under the umbrella of political economy theory (Deegan,

2009; Gray et al. 1996), which has been identified as “the social, political and

economic framework within which human life takes place” (Gray et al. 1996, p. 47).

Stakeholder theory, as one of theories that come under the umbrella of Political

Economy theory explains that all stakeholders have the right to information about the

organisation, including its impact on pollution, employment and community

sponsorship (Deegan, 2000). Stakeholder theory has two branches (Deegan, 2000;

Deegan, 2009; Gray et al. 1996); the first one is the managerial branch of

stakeholder theory (Deegan, 2000; Deegan, 2009; Donaldson & Preston, 1995). The

56

managerial branch of stakeholder theory is more about the power; according to this

branch or perspective the organisation is seen as a part of the society (Deegan,

2000). The managerial perspective of stakeholder theory considers “the different

stakeholder groups within society and how they should best be managed if the

organisation is to survive” (Deegen, 2000, p. 272). From this point of view, the

organisation will not respond to stakeholders equally, it will respond more positively

to the more powerful stakeholders (Deegen, 2000). The second branch of

stakeholder theory is the ethical branch (Deegan, 2000; Deegan, 2009; Donaldson &

Preston, 1995). According to this perspective, all kinds of stakeholders have an

equal right to be considered by the organisation, also employees have basic rights

such as safe working conditions. Thus all stakeholders have the right to get

information about the organisation and its impact on them; examples of this

information are pollution, employment and community sponsorship (Deegan, 2000;

Deegan, 2009; Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Hasnas, 1998).

The second theory under the umbrella of Political Economy Theory is institutional

theory. According to Dacin and Martinez (1999) institutional theory is mainly

concerned with an organisation’s interaction with “the institutional environment, the

effects of social expectations on the organisation, and the incorporation of these

expectations as reflected in organisational practices and characteristics” (P. 76).

More broadly, according to Deegan (2009) institutional theory is concerned with how

an organisation forms and it can offer reasons that explain why organisations take on

similar characteristics and forms within a certain organisational field. This has been

identified by Dimaggio and Powell (1983) as a group of organisations that constitute

the institutional life of the organisation. So according to institutional theory, an

57

organisation will change its form and structure to satisfy the external expectations of

an organisational field in order to gain legitimacy (Deegan, 2002). Therefore, there

are particular rules and beliefs in the institutional field that will put institutional

pressure on the organisations to seek legitimacy, by having a similar structure and

this will lead to an increase in the homogeneity of organisational structure.

According to Dimaggio and Powell (1983), the process of homogeneity of

organisations is 'isomorphism' and they introduce two types of isomorphism:

competitive and institutional. In their work they emphasised institutional

isomorphism. Institutional isomorphism is one strategy by which an organisation may

gain institutional and political legitimacy (Dimaggio & Powell, 1983). There are three

mechanisms that institutional isomorphic changes can occur through; 1) coercive

isomorphism; 2) mimetic isomorphism; and 3) normative isomorphism (Dimaggio &

Powell, 1983). Coercive isomorphism results from the pressures that the

organisation faces from different sides. It could be pressure by other organisations

on which they are dependent or by cultural expectations in the society within which

organisations work (Dimaggio & Powell, 1983). Mimetic isomorphism is seen as a

response to uncertainty, which is a powerful force for change when the appropriate

solutions are not available and so an organisation tends to imitate other

organisations. In other words when organisational technologies are unsatisfied,

when goals are unclear, or when there is a symbolic uncertainty, an organisation

may form itself on other organisations (Dimaggio & Powell, 1983). The third type of

institutional isomorphism is normative which comes mainly from professionalisation,

which could be seen as the collection of great effort of members of a profession to

identify the conditions and methods of their work (Dimaggio & Powell, 1983).

58

Dimaggio and Powell (1983) identified two facets of professionalisation that are

significant sources of isomorphism. The first one is formal education produced by

university experts, and the second is the growth and amplification of professional

networks (Dimaggio & Powell, 1983).

By these three types of mechanisms, institutional isomorphic change occurs over

time in the organisational field. The organisation becomes similar to other

organisations in the organisational field, which helps the organisation to be

considered as legitimate, to gain public and private trust, and to encourage

professional staff (Dimaggio & Powell, 1983).

The third theory that comes under the umbrella of political economy theory is

legitimacy theory. In this research legitimacy theory will be employed to explain

corporate environmental disclosures. In so doing, legitimacy theory will be discussed

in detail in the next part.

3.2. General discussion of legitimacy theory Legitimacy theory is recognised to be a system–oriented theory like stakeholder

theory; within system–oriented theory, an organisation is assumed to have

influences and be influenced by the society in which it operates (Deegan, 2002).

Any organisation is considered to be a part of a large social system, which it

operates within; this social system includes other organisations, suppliers,

individuals, the public and regulators (Cyert & March, 1963; Deegan et al. 2002;

Deegan, 2009; Dimaggio & Powell, 1983; Milne & Patten, 2002). This social system

(organisational environment), however, does not just provides resources and

59

services but further it could be considered as a threat to the organisation (Dowling &

Pfeffer, 1975; Milne & Patten, 2002; Perrow, 1970). Therefore, for the organisation to

survive, it will be dependent upon the acceptance and grant of the organisation’s

environment (external parties), which lead to the organisation seeking to gain

legitimacy (Milne & Patten, 2002; Perrow, 1970). This is consistent with legitimacy

theory which asserts that organisations continually seek to ensure that their activities

are perceived by the organisational environment (external parties) as being

legitimate (Deegan, 2009). In this regard, two concepts should be clarified;

legitimacy and legitimation. Lindblom (1994-3) has clarified the differentiation

between these two concepts, legitimacy is defined to be a status or condition and

legitimation is the process through which an organisation gains legitimacy (Deegan,

2009; Lindblom, 1994).

There have been four ways highlighted in the prior literature to explain how

organisations gain legitimacy (Gray et al. 1995a; Lindblom, 1994). The first way the

organisation can take is to educate and inform its relevant public about actual

changes in the performance of the organisation and activities. Organisations select

this strategy as a response to the recognition that the legitimacy gap was caused by

an actual failure of the organisation’s performance (Gray et al. 1995a; Lindblom,

1994). The second strategy is that the organisation may change the relevant public’s

perceptions and keep its actual behaviour without change. Organisations follow this

strategy as a response to the legitimacy gap being produced by misperceptions on

the part of the relevant public (Gray et al. 1995a; Lindblom, 1994). Third, the

organisation may deflect public attention from the main issue of concern to other

related issues, for example when the organisation has a legitimacy gap because of

60

its pollution performance, it chooses to avoid the pollution and focus on its

participation with environmental charities (Gray et al. 1995a; Lindblom, 1994).

Fourthly, the organisation may change external expectations of its performance; this

strategy is selected when the organisation sees that the relevant parties have

unrealistic expectations of their responsibilities (Gray et al. 1995a; Lindblom, 1994). ,

However, the current research does not focus upon the process of legitimation but

instead more focus will be on the legitimacy.

According to Dowling and Pfeffer (1975, P. 122) legitimacy is

“a condition or status which exists when an entity’s value system is

congruent with the value system of the larger social system of which the

entity is a part. When a disparity, actual or potential, exists between the

two value systems, there is a threat to the entity’s legitimacy”.

Based on legitimacy theory, legitimacy is seen as one of the resources that the

organisation is dependent on for survival (Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975; O’Donovan,

2002). Also, legitimacy theory suggests that if managers see the supply of certain

resources legitimacy as significant to the organisation, they will ensure a continual

supply of this resource (Deegan, 2009).

3.2.1. Social contract Social contract is a concept not considered to be a new idea (Deegan, 2009) and it

has been discussed by several philosophers, for example Thomas Hobbes (1588-

1679), John Locke (1932-1704) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). It is not

easy to define social contract (Deegan, 2009), but in previous literature it has been

defined by Rousseau (1975) and Cormire and Gordon (2001, P. 589). The social

contract is “an association that people or organisations enter into freely to enhance

61

society’s overall welfare”. It is also defined as a concept that is used to present a

number of terms which could include explicit terms (legal requirements) and implicit

terms (non-legislated societal expectations) (Gray et al. 1996).

According to Mathews (1993) the notion of legitimacy is related to the social contract

and legitimacy theory directly depends upon the concept that there is a social

contract between the organisation and the society where it operates (Deegan, 2002;

Deegan, 2009). More specifically, within legitimacy theory, organisational survival is

based on, and affected by, society. If the society perceives that the organisation has

broken its social contract, the legitimacy of the organisation will be threatened

(Deegan, 2002). Therefore, the organisation will need to take several actions to

avoid the public’s threat and to ensure that its activities are perceived to be

legitimate (Deegan, 2009; Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975).

3.2.2. Social expectations Traditionally, the man factor used to measure corporate performance was the

maximisation of profits (Heard & Bolce, 1981; Patten, 1991; Patten, 1992;

Ramanathan, 1976). According to this notion, profit was viewed as the main way to

measure the organisation’s legitimacy (Ramanathan, 1976). In last decades, it has

been argued that the social (public) expectation has been significantly changed

(Deegan, 2009; Heard & Bolce, 1981). For example, in the United States there was a

huge increase in regulations regarding social issues including employees,

environment, health and safety in the period of the 1960s and 1970s (Heard & Bolce,

1981). This led to public expectations towards the organisation in preventing or

repairing the damage of the environment, which could have occurred by its activities

62

(Tinker & Neimark, 1987). Therefore, with insufficient social and environmental

performance, organisations will face difficulties in gaining support to continue

operating in a society which values a clean environment (Deegan, 2009).

Because public expectations have changed, organisations have had to adapt to this

change and react accordingly. In other words, for the purpose of legitimacy, an

organisation has had to show that it makes some changes in reaction to the change

in public expectations and justify the activities that have not changed (Deegan,

2009). Consistent with this view, Lindblom (1994, p. 3) has stated that

“Legitimacy is dynamic in that the relevant continuously corporate output,

methods, and goals are up against an ever–evolving expectation. The

legitimacy gap will fluctuate without any changes in action on the part of

the corporation. Indeed, as expectations of the relevant public change, the

corporation must make changes or the legitimacy gap will grow as the

level of conflict increases and the level of positive and passive support

decreases”.

The concept of a legitimacy gap is used to describe and explain “the situation where

there appears to be a lack of correspondence between how society believes an

organisation should act and how it is perceived that the organisation has acted”

(Deegan, 2009, P. 329). There are two different reasons that have been highlighted

by Sethi (1978), which could cause a legitimacy gap; the first one is the change of

relevant public expectations, and the second is when the society knows information

about the organisation, which was previously unknown information.

There have been several legitimation tactics and disclosure approaches discussed in

prior work in relation to reducing the legitimacy gap (Ashforth & Gibbs, 1990;

63

O’Donovan, 2002). These legitimation tactics are different and to some extent

dependent on the goal of the response of the organisation (Ashforth & Gibbs, 1990;

O’Donovan, 2002; Oliver, 1991). According to O’Donovan, (2002, P. 349)

“legitimation techniques/tactics chosen will differ depending upon whether the

organisation is trying to gain or extend legitimacy, to maintain its current level of

legitimacy, or to repair or to defend its lost or threatened legitimacy”. An attempt to

gain legitimacy occurs when the organisation establishes or enters a new area of

activity or uses new structures or processes (Ashforth & Gibbs, 1990; O’Donovan,

2002; Oliver, 1991). An attempt to maintain legitimacy occurs when the organisation

has reached a threshold of support sufficient for current activities. Maintenance

activities could include: 1- continuing role performance and symbolic assurances that

all is excellent, 2- attempting to expect and avoid potential challenges to legitimacy

(Ashforth & Gibbs, 1990; O’Donovan, 2002; Oliver, 1991). Attempting to repair or to

defend lost legitimacy occurs when the organisation's existing legitimacy is

challenged or threatened and the organisation tries to respond to the threat (Ashforth

& Gibbs, 1990; O’Donovan, 2002; Oliver, 1991).

3.3. Corporate reports and communicating legitimation tactics. Even though the performance of an organisation complies with the relevant public

expectation of appropriate performance, the legitimacy of this organisation could be

threatened (Deegan, 2009). This threat of legitimacy could be seen as result of lack

of communication with society. The organisation might not make sufficient

disclosure, which shows that the organisation is doing well, to comply with the

society’s expectations (Deegan, 2009; Deegan et al. 2002). This emphasises the fact

that corporate disclosure plays a significant role in all legitimation strategies

64

(Deegan, 2009). Dowling and Pfeffer (1975, P. 127) stress the role of communication

in legitimation strategies that organisations could follow to be legitimate and they

highlighted some strategies:

- The organisation can adapt its output, goals and methods of operation to

conform to prevailing definitions of legitimacy.

- The organisation can attempt, through communication, to alter the definition of

social legitimacy so that it conforms to the organisation’s present practices,

output and values.

- The organisation can attempt, through communication, to become identified

with symbols, values or institutions that have a strong base of legitimacy.

In addition and consistent with the strategy of communication of Dowling and Pfeffer

(1975), Deegan (2002, P. 297) identified some of Lindblom’s (1994) strategies:

- Educate and inform its “relevant public” about (actual) changes in the

organisation’s performance and activities.

- Change the perceptions to the “relevant public” – but not change its actual

behaviour.

- Manipulate perception by deflecting attention from the issue of concern onto

other related issues through an appeal to, for example, emotive symbols.

- Change external expectations of its performance.

As has been highlighted in the previous literature, controlling and communicating the

responses to the public is seen as means of managing legitimacy (Dowling and

Pfeffer, 1975; Lindblom, 1994; O’Donovan, 2002; Sethi, 1978). Accounting and its

products such as reports provide channels for organisations to communicate with the

public and then legitimate their activities (Cormier & Gordon, 2001). For a long time

annual reports have been considered as the main public document produced by an

organisation and these have a vital influence on the public's reaction toward the

organisation (Anderson & Epstien, 1995; O’Donovan, 2002). Through annual reports,

65

managers can deliver a certain message to the public and then persuade the public

to accept the organisation’s view of society (O’Donovan, 2002). According to

legitimacy theory, managers use the annual reports to reduce public concern about

the organisation’s activities (Deegan et al. 2002; Lindblom, 1994). It has been

argued in earlier literature that annual reports play a significant role to legitimise an

organisation’s existence and shape the social imagery of the organisation (Deegan

et al. 2002; Gray et al. 1995b). Furthermore, legitimacy theory argues that the

disclosure that is made in the annual reports by the organisation, is so the

organisation can show it is complying with relevant expectations or to change the

community expectations (Deegan et al. 2002).

3.4. Environmental disclosure as a response to the public expectations Environmental disclosure, as has been pointed out in prior literature, has significantly

increased across time (Deegan & Gordon, 1996 Deegan et al. 2002; Gray et al.

1995b) and one of the reasons behind this increase is a legitimacy motivation

(Deegan et al. 2002). The voluntary disclosure of environmental information in

annual reports is recognised as a way that organisations use to convey a specific

message to society about its activities and environmental actions (Deegan et al.

2000; O’Donovan, 2002). In this regard, O’Donovan (2002) has pointed out several

benefits which organisations could gain from corporate environmental disclosure.

These benefits include “aligning management’s values with social values; pre-

empting attacks from pressure groups; enhancing corporate reputation; providing

opportunities to lead debates; securing endorsements; demonstrating strong

management principles; and demonstrating social responsibilities” (p. 351).

66

In addition, corporate environmental disclosure can be perceived as a response to

public pressures that have been exerted by different stakeholders (such as

environmental groups, suppliers and the community), with corporate management

attempting to manage relevant public impressions with respect to the environmental

performance of the organisation (Cormier et al. 2005; Neu et al. 1998). Therefore, it

can be concluded that there is an implicit social contract between the organisation

and relevant parties who are affected by the organisation’s activities or operations

(Brown & Deegan, 1998; Cormier et al. 2005). Based on this, if the organisation

wants to continue its operations and activities in a particular community, it has to

ensure that it is meeting the conditions of the social contract. If the organisation fails

to operate consistently with community and public expectations, this leads to its own

demise (Deegan & Rankin, 1996). Within legitimacy theory, environmental disclosure

might be shown as a key, used by managers to legitimise the organisation’s activities

to the public (Cormier et al. 2005).

This view is reflected for instance, in the Sustainability Development Report of Origin

Energy LTD (2010) which includes a statement that “the value we create will be

distributed to stakeholders, recognising the need to ensure the sustainability of our

business and its impact on the environment and the communities in which we

operate” (p. 1). This statement reflects the idea that the organisation carefully takes

into account, and shows its commitment toward, the society in which it operates in

order to be legitimate. Further, and consistent with Origen Energy’s statement,

Woodside Petroleum also states in its Sustainability Development Report (2010, p.

46) “in preparing this report, we reflect our commitment to the business principles,

taking into account our business strategy, how we have gone about our business

67

activities, the potential impact of these activities on our communities, and the views

of our stakeholders on issues of importance and concern”. Additional to this, and in

the same report, Don Voelte (Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director of

Woodside) pointed out that “last year we reported on the implications of the 2009

Montara oil spill. As we anticipated, the entire industry has come under increased

scrutiny from government regulators and other stakeholders on its performance. In

2010, this was heightened by the tragic Macondo oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, which

resulted in 11 people losing their lives and lasting environmental consequences.

Woodside continues to carefully analyse our approach to the prevention of,

preparedness for, response to and recovery from incidents such as these” (p. 3).

This clarifies how the organisation uses corporate reports (environmental disclosure)

as a key tool to respond to public concerns of its activities in the community and also

shows the ways that it will react to particular events to satisfy the social expectation

of the community in which it operates in order to be legitimate.

3.5. Implication of legitimacy theory in environmental accounting research In recent decades, it has been highlighted that legitimacy theory has been widely

used by scholars in the field of accounting, more specifically, a number of

researchers who study environmental accounting practice have adapted legitimacy

theory in their works in order to explain the environmental reporting practice

(Deegan, 2009). In their studies the researchers tried to explain the corporate

environmental disclosure and how it is used by the managers and accountants in the

organisation as a strategy to gain legitimacy or to maintain legitimacy of their

organisation (see, for instance, Brown & Deegan, 1998; Cormier & Gordon, 2001;

Hogner, 1982; Deegan & Rankin, 1996; Deegan & Rankin, 2000; Deegan et al.

68

2002; Milne & Patten, 2002; O’Donovan, 2002; Patten, 1992; Savage et al. 1999;

Wilmshurst & Frost, 2000). A number of such studies will be considered in the next

section.

Early work in this area has been done by Hogner (1982). In this study Hogner

attempted to find a link between legitimacy theory and corporate social and

environmental disclosure. Hogner (1982) used annual reports to examine social

reporting practice of the US steel Corporation in a period of eight decades. He found

that the social disclosure was different from year to year and the reason he

speculated, was the change in society’s expectations. Patten (1992) used legitimacy

theory to examine environmental disclosures. He studied the change in the corporate

environmental disclosure of North American oil companies before and after the

Exxon oil spill in Alaska in 1989 (which is considered to be one of the largest oil spills

in history). His results supported legitimacy theory, and he found that there was an

increase in corporate environmental disclosure by the oil companies after the Exxon

oil spill in Alaska. These results are consistent with legitimacy theory and

environmental disclosure is seen as a reaction to the Exxon oil spill, which

threatened the whole oil sector.

Deegan and Rankin (1996) also adapted legitimacy theory to explain the change in

environmental disclosure policies. They studied the corporate environmental

disclosure practice using a sample of a number of Australian companies who were

successfully prosecuted by the environmental protection authorities. Their results

indicate that public disclosure of proven environmental prosecutions has impacted

upon the disclosure policies of the companies involved. Further work has been done

69

by Brown and Deegan (1998), who also examined environmental disclosure within

legitimacy theory. They used media coverage to present to the community and public

their findings supporting legitimacy theory in relation to corporate environmental

disclosure. They also concluded that in some cases corporate environmental

disclosure could be an appropriate strategy of management to react toward media

attention in regard to environmental issues.

Buhr (1998) conducted a study using a Canadian company (Falconbridge) to

examine which theory, legitimacy or political economy theory is appropriate in

explaining the company’s disclosure of sulphur dioxide emissions over a period of 28

years. In her result, Buhr found support for legitimacy theory as it provided a better

explanation for the disclosure of sulphur dioxide emissions. Also in a Canadian

context, Savage et al. (1999) used legitimacy theory to explain the environmental

disclosure made by two Canadian Pulp and Paper companies. Furthermore, Cormier

and Gordon, (2001) examined the corporate environmental disclosure made by three

electric utilities, two public and one private, using legitimacy theory. O’Donovan

(2002) also conducted a study which sought to extend the applicability and the

predictive power of legitimacy theory. O’Donovan interviewed senior personnel from

three of the largest Australian public companies to investigate to what extent

environmental disclosure in annual reports is interconnected within efforts to gain,

repair and maintain legitimacy and the selection of certain legitimation strategies.

O’Donovan’s findings support the fact that legitimacy theory provides a better

explanation for corporate environmental disclosure.

70

3.6. Conclusion Different theories have been adopted in previous work to drive the analysis of

corporate environmental disclosure. Legitimacy theory is considered to be one of the

more commonly applied, which is widely used to explain environmental disclosure

and reporting practice (Deegan, 2009; Unerman et al. 2007). Consequently, this

research adopts legitimacy theory to explore the corporate environmental disclosure

practice of Australian oil and gas companies. Legitimacy theory is a systems–level

theory. Within a system– oriented theory, a company is assumed to have influences,

and be influenced by, the society in which it operates (Deegan, 2002). Any company

is considered to be a part of a large social system, within which it operates; this

social system includes other organisations, suppliers, individuals, public and

regulators (Cyert & March, 1963; Deegan, 2009; Deegan et al. 2002; Dimaggio &

Powell, 1983; Milne & Patten, 2002). So, to survive, the company will rely upon the

acceptance of the business environment (external parties and the relevant public),

which leads to the company seeking to gain legitimacy (Milne & Patten, 2002;

Perrow, 1970). This is consistent with legitimacy theory, which asserts that

organisations continually seek to ensure that their activities are perceived by the

organisational environment (external parties and relevant public) as being legitimate

(Deegan, 2009).

Controlling and communicating the responses to the public is seen as a means of

managing legitimacy (Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975; Lindblom, 1994; O’Donovan, 2002;

Sethi, 1978). Accounting and its products, such as corporate reports provide a

channel for organisations to communicate with the relevant public and then

legitimate their activities (Cormier & Gordon, 2001). Annual reports have been

71

considered as the main public document produced by organisations and have a vital

influence on the public reaction toward the organisation (Anderson & Epstien, 1995;

O’Donovan, 2002). The corporate disclosure of environmental information in annual

reports is recognised as a way used by companies to convey a specific message to

the relevant public about their activities and environmental actions (Deegan et al.

2000; O’Donovan, 2002). So, consistent with legitimacy theory, corporate

environmental disclosure can be seen as a response to public pressures that are

exerted by different stakeholders (such as environmental groups, suppliers and the

community), with corporate management attempting to manage relevant public

impressions with respect to the environmental performance of the organisation

(Cormier et al. 2005; Neu et al. 1998).

72

Chapter 4. Research design The last chapter informed the theoretical framework of this research. A number of

theories were discussed including a detailed discussion of legitimacy theory which is

the main theory applied in this research. In this chapter, the extractive industry and

research methodology will be outlined. The main aim of this chapter is to provide a

clear picture of the extractive industry with oil and gas industry specifically as the

main focus of this research. Also, the current chapter seeks to give a clear insight

about how this research will be conducted. In doing so, sample selection and content

analysis will be explained in this chapter. The subsequent sections of this chapter

are organised as follows:

This chapter will start with providing a brief introduction of the extractive industry. In

this section, the extractive industry in general is discussed including discussion of

the Australian extractive industry since 1839. In this regard, the researcher attempts

to present an idea about the journey of the development of the Australian extractive

industry. Additionally, this section discusses some of the challenges and issues that

the extractive industry faces. In the following section, explanation on the sample

selection is provided including the criteria used to select the sample and justification

for the selection. The last section discusses in details the research method, content

analysis, and its application in this study.

4.1. Brief introduction of extractive industry The extractive industry has been defined as the industry focused on extracting

natural sources from the ground such as sand, clay, salt, stone, petroleum (i.e. oil

and gas) and mining industries (Luther, 1996). Such industries have received wide

73

attention in the world of business because the extractive industry is considered to be

one of the most effective and important sectors in the world of business (Luther,

1996). The extractive industry gains this importance from the global impacts

(economical, political and environmental) that it has, from different perspectives

(Cortese, 2006). This highlights the main reason as to why this research focuses on

the extractive industry. The current research will be more about the environmental

impacts of the oil and gas industry so there will be a detailed and in depth discussion

of the environmental impacts rather than political and economical impacts.

Historically, oil was first discovered in Australia in 1839 in Victoria. This occurred

accidently during the process of drilling for water (Wolfensohn & Marshall, 1994).

Later in 1892 the first process of drilling for oil was attempted but was unsuccessful.

It was not until 1920 that the first commercial oilfield was established in Victoria

(Wolfensohn & Marshall, 1994). In additional to oil, natural gas was discovered in

Australia in 1954 and in 1962 the flow of gas reached 9 million cubic feet daily

(Wolfensohn & Marshall, 1994). Since that time the oil and gas industry has become

an important pillar of the Australian economy (Wolfensohn & Marshall, 1994).

The oil and gas industry is central to the world economy. In Australia, by 1964, ten

years after the first exploration of natural gas there were 21 Australian oil and gas

companies with a market value of $170m, owning over 10 million acres of land.

However, oil and gas activities also bring about some environmental problems, such

as land degradation and habitat destruction as well as pollution. Crude oil includes

heavy metals and one of the most serious issues in the environment is that heavy

metals have high toxicity and biocumulate behaviour (Otuya et al. 2008), which can

74

lead to metallic poisoning and pollution of water, soil and land caused by oil spills

(Ogri, 2001). For example, Otuya et al. (2008) documented the incidence of

poisoning in Nigeria from heavy metals and pollution caused by petroleum activities.

In addition, gas flaring5, which is a core part of the major activities in the oil and gas

industry (Edino et al. 2010), is a major environmental problem because of the

emissions it produces such as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and the

serious implications of these. For example, in 2006, Woodside Petroleum, which is

the biggest Australian oil and gas company, flared about 566,429 tonnes of gas

(WPL Sustainability Development Report, 2007). More specifically, there are two

environmental problems that were caused by these emissions climate change and

ozone depletion (Hall & Taplin, 2007; Soh et al. 2008). Climate change, as Soh et al.

(2008) have defined, is an accumulation of greenhouse gases while ozone depletion

is caused by some gases that damage the ozone layer (Soh et al. 2008). According

to Edino et al. (2010), greenhouse gases and their impacts (climate change and

ozone depletion) could play a vital role in relation to giving rise to harmful

consequences on human health and ecosystems.

In Australia, water resources (such as rainfall) have been affected by climate change

(Soh et al. 2008). There was an increase in rainfall in the period between 1970 and

2010 generally over the north-western regions of Australia. However, there is a clear

decrease in the amount of rainfall in Tasmania, Victoria, New South Wales and

Queensland (BOM, 2012). In the next part the accounting of the oil and gas industry

will be discussed.

5 Gas flaring is the procedure by which extra natural gas is released from the oil and gas sites and burned.

75

The most active issue in the area of accounting for the extractive industry is cost

accounting; this issue has been discussed by a number of academic authors. Cost

accounting in the extractive industry (oil and gas) is based on the two main methods

of cost, which have been widely used in recent years; full-cost method of accounting

and successful-efforts method of accounting (Cortese et al. 2009; Flory & Grossman,

1978; Murdoch & Krause, 2009; Pratt, 1990). Full-cost method of accounting is

where firms capitalize all expenditures of oil and gas exploration whether the result

of the venture was successful or unsuccessful (Collins & Dent, 1979; Flory &

Grossman, 1978). With regard to the successful-efforts method of accounting, firms

can only capitalize the successful efforts of exploration and drilling and charge them

against the production (Collins & Dent, 1979; Flory & Grossman, 1978). Generally,

Australian listed extractive companies were avoiding the successful-efforts method

of accounting and have used instead the full-cost method of accounting for a long

time, in relation to pre-production cost accounting. However, at the beginning of the

seventies there had been several changes highlighted in this regard when some

Australian listed extractive companies tended to use the successful-efforts method of

accounting (Wise & Spear, 2000).

With respect to all of this, recently, another issue has been raised in the oil and gas

industry. Oil and gas companies in the last few decades have tried to improve their

performance in relation to the environment (Levy & Kolk, 2002; Wright, 1998). There

have been several reasons for the trend in oil and gas companies to be more

concerned about the environment. The first reason is to satisfy stakeholders’ needs.

In this regard the companies attempt to address stakeholders’ requirements by

76

improving companies’ environmental performances and disclosures to either

financial or non-financial stakeholders (Kent & Chan, 2003).

The second reason is climate change. Climate change has been the most common

environmental problem in recent years (Hall & Taplin, 2007; Soh et al. 2008) and has

been identified by scientific consensus as the most serious environmental problem

internationally (Hall & Taplin, 2007). Due to this public concern, climate change has

received global attention and responses; an example of these responses is from

Australia (Hall & Taplin, 2007). In Australia, Environmental Non-Government

Organizations (NGOs) have organized campaigns to attract political and public

attention to the issue of climate change and decrease the emissions and the use of

fossil fuels, including oil (Hall & Taplin, 2007).

Thirdly, and the most important reason is the regulations and the laws. Oil and gas

companies are more concerned about the regulations and other commitments in

relation to the environment and how to maintain and restore it (Wright, 1998). Oil and

gas companies face a high cost in relation to maintaining and restoring the

environment (Wright, 1998).

In the oil and gas industry, especially in exploration and production activities, the

environmental cost can be broken into two kinds. The first is the environmental

contamination treatment cost. It includes the cost for elimination, for the

determination and prevention of existing and future environmental contamination,

such as oil spill clean up and compliance monitoring. Secondly, the restoration and

environmental reclamation cost. This is in regard to the geographical location and it

77

includes the cost necessary to recover this location and return it to the ecological

form it was before the industrial activities began. This may include restoring the land,

recovery of the forest, replanting trees and vegetation, restoring wildlife, and the

clean up of poisonous material, which may cause future threats to human or animal

habitations (Wright, 1998). There are complex laws relating to the oil and gas

industry and these laws are in regard to restoring and maintaining the environment.

In addition, Wright (1998) concludes that, "uncertainty regarding the timing and

amount of dismantlement, restoration, and environmental reclamation expenditures

has perplexed and frustrated accountants in their endeavour to develop acceptable

accounting procedures and standards" (p. 48).

In the extractive industry most of the companies do not disclose additional

information in their reports and financial statements in relation to their activities

(Russell & Jenkins, 2010). Russell and Jenkins (2010) state that the financial

reports are one of the tools that companies use for marketing their products because

the oil and gas industry has become very significant for many environmental and

political interests. However, Russell and Jenkins (2010) suggest that there should be

a comprehensive accounting standard to cover several issues which relate to oil and

gas accounting. For example, carbon emissions should get more of a mention in

comprehensive oil and gas accounting standards. It is important that there should be

a comprehensive standard for the oil and gas industry, and this comprehensive

standard should contain all the elements that relate to the oil and gas industry

(Russell & Jenkins, 2010).

78

4.2. Sample selection: In this research, the extractive industry was chosen to collect the data of the study.

More specifically, the samples are selected from the oil and gas sector of Australia.

In this regard, the research attempts to add more significance to the study by

struggling to choose appropriate samples. The main criteria that the researcher used

in this study, was to select a sample that is environmentally sensitive. As was

mentioned before in the chapter one, the appropriate companies or samples to study

corporate environmental disclosure are the companies that are more likely to be

affected and so react against any environmental issues or environmental pressure

from the public (Frost, 2007). According to Deegan & Gordon (1996) more

environmental sensitivity means more attention will be received from environmental

lobbies (including environmental organisations, associations, media and

governments). This greater consideration and attention will lead to companies

reacting and responding quickly toward any environmental issues and disclosing

more environmental information in relation to their activities. This reaction might be

to improve the company’s image or sometimes to positively differentiate the

company from others (Deegan & Gordon, 1996).

A number of scholars in previous literature have argued that the extractive industry

(including the oil and gas sector) is universally considered as one of the most

environmentally sensitive industries (see, for example, Deegan & Gordon, 1996;

Frost, 1999; Frost, 2007; Hackston & Milne, 1996; Patten, 1992). In their paper,

Deegan and Gordon (1996) studied the environmental disclosure practices of

Australian companies in different industries; they also investigated the environmental

sensitivity of these industries. They found the oil and gas industry to be one of the

79

five most environmentally sensitive industries, and was more likely to respond to any

environmental event. This view is similar to what Patten (1992) found in his article.

Patten (1992) found that after the Exxon Valdez disaster of 1989, the oil and gas

companies in the US started to disclose more environmental information and the

corporate environmental disclosure improved considerably after this disaster

compared with the prior period.

In Australia, there are currently 41 companies listed on the Australian Stock

Exchange (ASX) under the oil and gas sector. Of these 41 oil and gas companies,

the largest 10 by market capitalisation companies were selected as the research

sample based on the view that the size of the company plays a vital role regarding

environmental disclosure. Several academics have argued that there is a clear

relationship between environmental disclosure and size of the company (Hackston &

Milne, 1996; Kolk, 2003; Patten, 1991).These top 10 companies represent 92 % of

the overall market capitalisation of the oil and gas Sector on the Australian Stock

Exchange (ASX) and are thus representative of the oil and gas sector in Australia.

Additionally, Deegan and Gordon (1996) also found that in the industries that were

considered highly environmentally sensitive (including the oil and gas industry) there

is a positive correlation between size of the company and environmental disclosure.

They also state that big companies are more likely to provide better voluntary

environmental disclosure. In the table below the selected companies are highlighted:

80

Table 4.1: Companies list

NO ASX

code

Company name Market

Capitalisation6

Sector Company’s

business

1 WPL Woodside Petroleum $ 36,663 m Oil & Gas Local and

international

2 ORG Origin Energy $15,769 m Oil & Gas Local and

international

3 STO Santos $13,595 m Oil & Gas Local and

international

4 OSH Oil Search $ 9,348 m Oil & Gas Local and

international

5 WOR WorleyParsons $ 7,463 m Oil & Gas Local and

international

6 KAR Karoon Gas Australia $ 1,583 m Oil & Gas Local and

international

7 AUT Aurora Oil & Gas $ 1,202 m Oil & Gas Local and

international

8 BPT Beach Petroleum $ 1,066 m Oil & Gas Local and

international

9 AWE AWE $ 905 m Oil & Gas Local and

international

10 ESG Eastern Star Gas $ 749 m Oil & Gas local

In regards to extracting the data, corporate reports are adopted as a source of the

data. As mentioned previously, public concern about environmental issues has

6 Market Capitalisation is the total value of the tradable shares of a publicly traded company.

81

increased in recent years (Beck et al. 2010; Bebbington & Gray, 2001; Lamberton,

2005; Milne & Gray, 2007). This public concern led to more attention being given to

corporate reports and companies and organisations that have used corporate reports

(e.g. annual reports and sustainability reports) to convey their environmental

information to stakeholders (Campbell, 2004; Campbell, 2010; Cowan & Gadenne,

2005). It has been highlighted that many previous studies sought to extract the data

from annual reports and other stand-alone reports (see, for example, Buhr, 1998;

Campbell, 2003; Clarkson et al. 2008; Cormier et al. 2005; Cowan & Gadenne, 2005;

Hackston & Milne, 1996; Harte & Owen, 1991; Patten, 1991; Patten & Crampton,

2004; Wilmshurst & Frost, 2000). Annual reports and stand-alone reports are a

suitable source of data to study environmental disclosures. So annual reports and

stand-alone sustainability reports will be collected as the key source of data.

Both annual reports and stand-alone reports were sourced from the website of the

Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) for the period between 2005 and 2010. Although

annual reports are available for all selected samples prior to the study period, most

of the samples did not issue stand-alone reports before 2005. A number of study

samples started to issue stand-alone reports after 2005 and some established a

sustainability committee. In addition, there was a change in the Federal Government

from a Liberal to a Labor Government in 2007. The Labor Government might be

considered to be more concerned about the environment and climate change,

evidenced by the introduction of carbon price legislation in 2010, which could affect

the environmental disclosure of oil and gas companies. This is a prospective area for

future research, as this research will provide a view of environmental disclosure

before the Australian Government’s proposed carbon price for comparison.

82

To sum up, in this study the sample is the largest 10 oil and gas companies listed

under the Oil and Gas Sector on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX). Annual

reports and stand-alone reports will be obtained for the period between 2005 and

2010 as the key data source.

4.3. Content analysis: A number of researchers in the field of accounting have used content analysis as a

method for their studies (Beck et al. 2010). Content analysis could be seen from two

extreme stands: quantitative and qualitative methods (Duriau et al. 2007; Neuman,

2011). From a quantitative content analysis point of view, the researchers “use

objective and systematic counting and recording procedures to produce a numerical

description of the content in a text” (Neuman, 2011, p. 361). In contrast, in qualitative

or interpretive content analysis, the researcher studies the content (documents or

reports) as “cultural objective or media that communicate social meaning” (Neuman,

2011, p. 362). Numerous scholarly works have provided several definitions for

content analysis. According to Harwood and Garry (2003, p. 479) “it is a technique

that enables analysis of ‘open-ended’ data to be structured for purposes of

diagnosis”. They also mentioned that content analysis could be used in both

quantitative and qualitative methods.

In particular, content analysis has been used by a number of researchers to study

environmental reports and annual reports. Examples of these researchers are:

Beattie et al. (2004); Beck et al. (2010); Guthrie & Abeysekera, (2006); Hackston &

Milne, (1996). It can be seen that content analysis is a leading method for collecting

83

and studying the empirical evidence in the field of environmental accounting (Guthrie

& Abeysekera, 2006; Parker, 2005). Parker (2005), analysed, investigated and

critiqued contemporary research in the area of social and environmental accounting

in the period between 1988 to 2003. Parker found 52 per cent of the papers belong

to the literature, theory, commentary, methodological categories and 48 % were

empirical studies of which 18% used content analysis as a research method.

In the area of environmental disclosure, content analysis has been widely used in

recent years to analyse different contexts of either the annual reports or

sustainability reports. Deloitte (2011) used content analysis to analyse the annual

report and stand-alone sustainability report, when investigating the motivation behind

the voluntarily corporate disclosure of social and environmental information in New

Zealand. Another recent study has been done by Kaur and Lodhia (2011), to

investigate the state and level of environmental disclosure on stakeholder

engagement in sustainability reporting in Australian local councils. Kaur and Lodhia

(2011) in this study used content analysis to analyse sustainability and State

Environmental Reports and annual reports of 558 local councils (city, shire, district,

borough and regional) in Australia in a two years period (2009-2010). Similarly,

Adnan, et al. (2011) used content analysis. This study has two goals; first, to supply

data on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reporting practices of large

companies and organisations operating in socially and environmentally sensitive

industries in China, UK, India and Malaysia. The second goal was to examine if

culture interacts with government ownership and the governance structure in

influencing the quality and quantity of CSR disclosure. Adnan et al. (2011) used

content analysis to examine 403 annual reports, CSR stand-alone reports and

84

corporate websites of 203 companies and organisations. More specifically, Cowan

and Gadenne (2005) examined the environmental disclosure practice in the

Australian context. They used content analysis to study environmental disclosures of

Australian companies through annual reports over a period of three years (1998-

2000).

The present study is informed by the works of Beck et al. (2010) and Hackston and

Milne (1996). Beck et al. (2010) paper was entitled “Content analysis in

environmental reporting research: Enrichment and rehearsal of the method in a

British–German context” (p. 1). The authors adopted interpretative content analysis

to examine the annual reports. In their article, the authors provide a wealth of

explanation for content analysis and they also presented appropriate categories and

sub-categories, which they used in their work to analyse the annual reports in

relation to environmental disclosure.

Content analysis is an appropriate research method for the study of environmental

disclosure and is adopted in this research. In this research, interpretative content

analysis will be used to investigate the environmental disclosure of oil and gas

companies in Australia. As the research question of this study is 'to what extent do

Australian oil companies disclose their environmental impact (both positive and

negative) in annual reports and sustainability reports?', the main content that this

research will be looking for, is the disclosure of environmental impacts of oil and gas

companies in Australia. Examples of these impacts are greenhouse gas emissions,

pollution (air pollution, land pollution and water pollution) and energy consumption.

85

To apply content analysis, there are some steps that have to be done before the

researcher can get started with the content analysis. First is segmentation or in other

words identifying the unit of analysis. The second is building the coding frame and

identifying the categories and sub-categories (Guthrie & Abeysekera, 2006).

4.3.1 Unit of analysis

Different ways and units of analysis have been used in content analysis. This is

because choosing a suitable unit of analysis is an important step in conducting

content analysis and it depends on the decision of the researcher and how the

researcher wants to drive his analysis. According to Lu (2008, p. 77), “it is a matter of

judgment, and individual researchers must exercise subject choice in selecting units

of analysis”. Regarding the unit of analysis, previous literature showed that there is

ongoing debate about selecting the appropriate unit of analysis, which should be

used in content analysis (Gray et al. 1995; Milne & Adler, 1999). Previous studies

have presented different units of analysis such as words, sentences and paragraphs

used in content analysis (see, for example, Beck et al. 2010; Campbell, 2003;

Campbell, 2004; Deegan & Gordon, 1996; Deegan & Rankin, 1996; Guthrie &

Abeysekera, 2006; Hackston & Milne, 1996; Wilmshurst & Frost, 2000).

The prior literature suggested, in written communication, words, sentences or pages

could be the appropriate unit of analysis, and “the case for using different units

revolve around the unit of meaning and the extent to which each unit can legitimately

be employed to draw the appropriate inferences” (Gray et al. 1995, p. 83-84).

Sentences could be appropriate when the researcher is looking for the inner

86

meaning, pages are suitable when the purpose of the study is the see the space that

given to the topic and words are preferred, especially when the databases are

looking for specific words (Gray et al. 1995).

In corporate environmental disclosure research, use of words as a unit of analysis

has some drawbacks (Campbell, 2003; Milne & Adler, 1999). Words do not convey

any meaning by themselves and do not give a sound foundation without a sentence

to code corporate environmental disclosure (Milne & Adler, 1999). In contrast, a

sentence is recognised as the main unit of speech or writing (Walden and Schwartz,

1997). Most of the researchers in the area of corporate environmental disclosure

have used sentences as a unit of analysis in their content analysis (Gray et al. 1995;

Guthrie & Abeysekera, 2006) and it has become more popular in areas of corporate

environmental disclosure. Using sentences as a unit of analysis, is more appropriate

compared with other units and it is more likely to supply complete, reliable and

meaningful data for additional analysis (Guthrie & Abeysekera, 2006; Milne & Adler,

1999). In the present research, sentences are used as a unit of analysis to capture

the environmental disclosure in relation to the categories and sub-categories that will

be used to analyse the annual and stand-alone reports.

4.3.2. Coding frame The coding frame, as Schreier (2012) defines, is a method of how the researcher

structures the data material. The matter of how the researcher builds and defines his

or her categories and subcategories could be seen as an art (Krippendorff, 2004).

For any coding frame, the researcher has to build up two things; first, main

categories, which represent specific aspects and second, subcategories for every

87

single main category, representing relevant meaning with which the category is

concerned about (Schreier, 2012). It has been highlighted in prior literature that

different researchers used a number of different coding styles (see, for example,

Beck et al. 2010; Clarkson et al. 2008; Deegan & Gordon, 1996; Hackston & Milne,

1996; Wiseman, 1982). In this study, building the coding frame will be guided and

based on the previous work of Hackston and Milne, (1996) (see, Appendix 3) and

Beck et al. (2010) (see, Appendix 2) and in addition to this work, Sustainability

Reporting Guidelines (GRI) (2011) (see, Appendix 1) will be adapted. The coding

frame was completed through number of steps as follows:

4.3.2.1. Coding categories Schreier (2012) has defined the main categories or the dimensions as the aspects

on which the researcher wants to focus in the analysis, and the subcategories as

what has been specifically said about the main categories. In this way interpretive

content analysis reduces the data material and limits them to the specific topic

(Schreier, 2012). In this study, in order to specify the topic and limit the concern of

this analysis, the researcher adapted Deegan and Rankin’s (1996) definition, which

Beck et al. (2010) have used in their work. Deegan and Rankin (1996) specified

environmental disclosures in the information that related to “the installation of

environmentally friendly machinery; undertaking of site rehabilitation; recycling

activities; admission of pollution emissions; incurrence of fines relating to

environmental misdemeanours, and the like” (p. 56).

Based on this definition the researcher started to review the previous coding of Beck

et al. (2010) (see, Appendix 2) and Hackston and Milne’s (1996) (see, Appendix 3)

88

work, and Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (GRI) (2011) (see, Appendix 1).

Observations and notices have been taken from the revision with respect to Deegan

and Rankin’s (1996) definition, and then a draft of a number of categories and

subcategories in the checklist was developed. Next, a random number of annual and

stand-alone reports of sample companies were reviewed in order to make sure the

chosen categories and subcategories fit in with the data. Lastly, a final draft of the

checklist was developed with eight main categories and twenty-five subcategories

(see Table 4.2 below). Annual reports and stand-alone reports of the sample

companies were studied in detail and analysed using this checklist, all parts of the

annual report and stand-alone reports were included in the analysis.

Table 4.2: The Categories of Content analysis

No Categories Sub categories Example s

1 General

environmental

disclosure

1.1 Environmental policies, concerns

and any general mention to the

environment or climate change.

1.2 Aims and strategies.

1.3 Compliance with regulations.

1.4 Any awards related to the

“The Board recognises the

importance of environmental,

Occupational health and safety

issues, and is committed to the

highest standards of performance”

(ESG annual report 2005, p. 27).

“Improve the company’s greenhouse

gas measurement methodology,

audit and report regularly” (ORG

sustainable development report

2005, p. 8).

“It is the Group’s policy to comply

with all relevant environmental

regulations under the laws of the

Commonwealth of Australia, or of a

State or Territory of Australia” (WOR

annual report 2010, P. 28).

“In December 2007 Origin was

89

environment.

1.5 Any general environmental

accident.

1.6 Fine.

awarded Sustainable Company of

the Year by Ethical Investor

Magazine. This award recognises

Origin’s broad leadership and

achievements in sustainability” (ORG

annual report 2008, p. 10).

“As a result of major oil spill incidents

in the Timor Sea and Gulf of Mexico,

in 2010 there was increased public

scrutiny by government and other

stakeholders on oil spill prevention,

mitigation and remediation” (WPL

sustainable development report

2010, p. 22).

“We did not incur any environmental

fines or penalties in relation to these

incidents” (WPL sustainable

development report 2010, p. 22).

2 Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any

efforts to reduce energy

consumption.

2.2 Any undertaking environmental

impact studies to monitor the

company’s impact on the

environment.

2.3 Any mention of sustainability.

“Origin and Geodynamics have also

formed the Innamincka Shallows

Joint Venture to evaluate the

geothermal potential of the shallower

Cooper and Eromanga basin section

within the existing permit areas”

(ORG annual report 2010, p. 16).

“Santos is also partnering with the

University of Sydney to better

understand the effects of drilling on

deep-sea biodiversity, undertake

experiments to study the

physiological impacts on marine

fauna and determine whether

subsea production structures can

create reefs” (STO annual report

2006, p. 30).

“The sustainability framework has

90

been developed in parallel with a

continuous improvement framework

and during 2007 Santos will

progressively align them” (STO

sustainable development report

2006, p. 6).

3 Environmental

pollution and

waste

3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions.

3.2 Any other significant air

emissions.

3.3 Actions to reduce the air

emissions.

3.4 The amount of waste and

disposal methods.

3.5 Information related to recycle or

reduce the waste.

“Oil Search’s greenhouse emissions

benefited in 2009 from an emissions

reduction and gas conservation

programme” (OSH annual report

2009, p. 41).

“Flared gas contributes to over 70

per cent of the total GHG emissions

from our PNG operations” (OSH

sustainable development report

2010, p. 32).

“We have introduced a number of

initiatives to enhance safety,

conserve gas and reduce costs,

which have resulted in a reduction of

our GHG emissions” (OSH

sustainable development report

2010, p. 34).

“Solid waste for disposal must be

cleaned of chemicals and

hydrocarbon through wash down or

incineration prior to being used as

landfill” (OSH sustainable

development report 2010, p. 34).

“We recycled 474 kilolitres, or

approximately 79 per cent of the total

waste oil generated during the

period” (ORG sustainable

development report 2009, p. 26).

91

3.6 Information related to any spills.

“During 2007, Woodside reduced the

number of reportable spills from 8 in

2006 to 6” (WPL annual report 2007,

p. 13).

4 Materials 4.1 Disclosures related to the used

material.

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle

material.

“Large metal items (pipes, vehicles,

shipping containers and shelter

frames) are accumulated at

designated laydown yards for metal

recyclers to remove. Smaller metals

(<2 metres including drums) are

taken to the scrap metal pit at the

waste management area and used

as landfill” (OSH sustainable

development report 2010, p. 41).

“We reduced our paper consumption

by 5 per cent saving $11,500” (ORG

sustainable development report

2005, p. 9).

5 Water 5.1 The amount of discharged or

used water.

5.2 Any information related to water

recycling.

“The data for drilling waste water

include discharges from the camp

facilities, drilling fluid, and general rig

water use” (OSH sustainable

development report 2010, p. 38).

“The total waste water discharge

from facilities is mainly treated

sewage effluent, but also includes

water used as fire water and in daily

wash-down activities” (OSH

sustainable development report

2010, p. 38).

6 Biodiversity

and land

6.1 location and size of land owned,

leased and used.

“Continued the Year-2 WA-314-P &

WA-315-P permits work program

commitments in the Northern Browse

Basin which is approximately 300 km

offshore from the Western Australian

coast” (KAR annual report 2007, p.

5).

92

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation.

6.3 Any information related

biodiversity.

“Provision is made in the balance

sheet for restoration of operating

locations. The estimated costs are

capitalized as part of the cost of the

related project where recognition

occurs upon acquisition of an

interest in the operating locations”

(AUT annual report 2010, p. 45).

“We continually strive to reduce our

environmental impact and conserve

biodiversity by implementing

environmental management systems

and technological improvements and

innovation” (AWE annual report 2009, p.

19).

7 Products and

services

7.1 Significant environmental impacts

of products or transporting products

and material used for the company’s

operations.

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate

environmental impacts of products

and services.

“Emissions from LPG transportation

come from the combustion of

transport fuels – mainly diesel for

ships and trucks. In 2004/05, our

equity emissions increased from 9

ktCO2e due to the fulltime charter of

two additional supply vessels” (ORG

sustainable development report

2005, p. 17).

“One of our most significant

environmental and social initiatives

for the year was the $20 million

Spring Gully Reverse Osmosis

Water Treatment Plant

commissioned in December 2007

and launched in May 2008” (ORG

sustainable development report

2008, p. 4)

8 Other 8.1 Any other environmental

disclosures not fitting the categories

above.

“The Burrup Industrial Estate, where

Woodside is planning to develop the

Burrup LNG Park, is located within

the 27000 hectare Dampier Rock Art

93

Precinct. Experts estimate that the

rock art precinct may contain up to

one million engravings. Most of the

rock art precinct is set aside for

conservation” (WPL annual report

2006, p. 16).

4.3.2.2. Coding the level of information After step one has been made, which is completion of the categorisation of the

content in relation to the disclosures themes, another type of coding is made.

Consistent with previous work by Beck et al. (2010), the annual and stand-alone

reports were coded in the level of detail and the depth of information (Beck et al.

2010; Beretta & Bozzolan, 2004). Beretta and Bozzolan (2004) argued that the

quantity of the disclosure is not sufficient to give insight about the effectiveness and

the completeness of the disclosure and the quality of the disclosure is reliant on two

factors; the amount of disclosures that a company provides and the details and the

richness of the information. So three levels of details of disclosure have been used

as categories to analyse the annual and stand-alone reports;

Level or type 1: Disclosure addresses issue in pure narrative. This type of disclosure

provides a low level of details and minimum coverage, so any report with a little

amount of type 1, means the disclosure addresses a small number of issues (Beck

et al. 2010).

Level or type 2: Disclosure addresses issue in numerical way. This type of disclosure

is usually related to quantitative themes such as emissions, consumption or

94

resources use, waste or expenditure (Beck et al. 2010). Type 2 disclosures, giving

numerical elements, could provide a higher quality of information than disclosing

information in pure narrative (Beck et al. 2010; Toms, 2002).

Level or type 3: Disclosure addresses issue in numerical way including qualitative

explanation (narrative and quantitative). This level added extra information and

details to level 2 by providing more explanation and description to the numerical

elements, which could be seen as a higher level of information than type 2 (Beck et

al. 2010). In the table below, the three levels of disclosure are presented and

examples for each one of them.

Table 4.3: The level of information or detail of the disclosure

Level of disclosure

Definition Examples

1 Disclosure addresses issue in pure

narrative

“The data for drilling waste water include

discharges from the camp facilities, drilling fluid,

and general rig water use” (OSH sustainable

development report 2010, p. 38).

2 Disclosure addresses issue in

numerical way

“The gas conserved in 2010 was 15.2 bcf

compared to the 12 months ending 30 June

2009” (OSH sustainable development report

2010, p. 32).

3 Disclosure addresses issue in

numerical way including qualitative

explanation (narrative and

quantitative)

“During 2007, Woodside reduced the number of

reportable spills from 8 in 2006 to 6. However,

over the same time period, the number of other

reportable environmental incidents increased

from 7 to 14. However, the impact of these

incidents was short term and localized” (WPL

annual report 2007, p. 13).

95

4.3.2.3. Coding the type of information

With the continued increasing complexity of business strategies, operations and

regulations, it becomes difficult for investors to be satisfied and appreciate financial

information on its own without clear explanatory notes. In addition, according to

Beretta and Bozzolan (2004), all stakeholders including shareholders and investors

require companies to disclose information concerning their prospects for future

performance and their sustainability. In this sense, narrative components of financial

information are important, not only because of clarifying and validating the

quantitative measures covered in financial statements (Chungh & Meador, 1984), but

also for offering useful insights for decision making (Lev & Zarowin, 1999; Robb,

Single, & Zarzeski, 2001). Also, completing financial and nonfinancial information

facilitates a better appreciation of the impact of events, decisions, and actions.

Types of information that a company should provide for shareholders and investors

are both financial and nonfinancial information (Beretta & Bozzolan, 2004). In this

regard, the corporate reports were evaluated and analysed in terms of financial and

nonfinancial information categories. The researcher in this study does not mean

financial information is just monetary information but means all of the disclosures

that include any information about any financial theme or elements such as

expenditures, profit and investment, no matter whether these disclosures were in

narrative or in a numerical way. The table below shows examples of the financial and

nonfinancial information categories.

96

Table 4.4 Type of information

Type of information Examples

Financial information “Restoration costs are based on the latest estimated future

costs, determined on a discounted basis, which are re-

assessed regularly and exclude any allowance for potential

changes in technology or material changes in legislative

requirements” (AUT annual report 2010, p. 45).

Nonfinancial information “As a result of major oil spill incidents in the Timor Sea and

Gulf of Mexico, in 2010 there was increased public scrutiny

by government and other stakeholders on oil spill prevention,

mitigation and remediation” (WPL sustainable development

report 2010, p. 22).

4.3.2.4 Disclosure measurement Three steps of data coding have been done so far; the variety of the content (step 1),

and the level of details and type of information (steps 2, 3). The last step of data

coding is disclosure measurement. In this research, the volumetric measurement by

sub-category, main category and by total was applied. Measuring the volume of each

category is a significant step in analysing any content. This is because, as has been

highlighted in prior literature for qualitative measurement, volumetric measurement

by category is required to give an indication of the significance of the category of

disclosure to the company (Beck et al. 2010). Therefore, the amount of

environmental disclosure was counted for each company per sub-category, main

category and total. In previous literature several ways have been applied for

quantification of the disclosure. It could be done by words, sentences, phrases and

pages (see, for example, Beck et al. 2010; Deegan & Gordon, 1996; Hackston &

Milne, 1996; Ingram & Frazier, 1980; Milne & Adler, 1999; Patten, 1991). Following

97

Hackston and Milne’s (1996) work, the quantification of the disclosure was based on

the number of sentences. Sentences are recognised as one of the appropriate ways

to record or measure environmental disclosure because sentences can provide the

researcher with complete, reliable and meaningful data (Milne and Adler, 1999).

Sentences are also more likely to “provide more reliable measures of inter-rater

coding than words” (Hackston & Milne, 1996, p. 86).

4.4. Conclusion In this research, the extractive industry (oil and gas sector) is used investigate

corporate environmental disclosure. The oil and gas sector was chosen because as

an extractive industry is commonly considered to be one of the most environmentally

sensitive industries (see, for example, Deegan & Gordon, 1996; Frost, 1999; Frost,

2007; Hackston & Milne, 1996; Patten, 1992). In Australia particularly, Deegan and

Gordon (1996) studied the environmental disclosure practices of Australian

companies in different industries and they investigated the environmental sensitivity

of these industries. They found that the oil and gas industry is one of the most

environmental sensitive industries, and the companies under oil and gas industry are

more likely to respond to an environmental event to ensure the protection of their

reputation.

The appropriate samples to study corporate environmental disclosure practices are

those that have a higher probability in being influenced, are sensitive and react to

any environmental events or environmental pressure from the public (Frost, 2007).

This is also supported by Deegan and Gordon (1996) who state that environmental

sensitivity means companies will receive more attention from the environmental

98

lobby groups including community, environmental organisations, media and

governments. This greater attention will encourage companies respond quickly

toward any environmental impacts related to their activities and disclose more

environmental information. This reaction might be to improve the company’s image

or sometimes to positively differentiate the company from others (Deegan & Gordon,

1996). This previously was proven by Patten (1992) who found that, after the Exxon

Valdez disaster of 1989, oil and gas companies in the US started to disclose and

provide more environmental information about their activities and the corporate

environmental disclosure improved considerably after this disaster in comparison

with the prior period.

In this research, the largest 10 Australian companies in the oil and gas sector are

chosen. This is because the size of the company plays a vital role in regard to

environmental disclosure. A number of academics have argued that there is

association between environmental disclosure and the size of the company

(Hackston & Milne, 1996; Patten, 1991). Also in the Australian context, Deegan and

Gordon (1996) support that in the environmentally sensitive industries including the

oil and gas industry there was a positive association between the company’s size

and the environmental accounting disclosure. The research’s data is captured from

corporate reports. The corporate reports, (e.g. annual reports and sustainability

reports) are used by companies to disclose their environmental information to

stakeholders (Campbell, 2004; Campbell, 2010; Cowan, 2005). Annual reports and

stand-alone reports are obtained in the period between 2005 and 2010 as the key

source of data.

99

Annual reports and stand-alone reports are analysed by interpretative content

analysis. In many researches, content analysis has been applied to study

environmental reports and annual reports (see, for instance, Beattie et al. 2004;

Beck et al. 2010; Guthrie & Abeysekera, 2006; Hackston & Milne, 1996). In the field

of environmental accounting, content analysis is a leading method for collecting and

analysing the empirical evidence (Guthrie & Abeysekera, 2006; Parker, 2005). A

number of experts in the area of environmental disclosure supported that content

analysis is one of the appropriate research methods to study and investigate

environmental disclosure (Beattie et al. 2004; Beck et al. 2010; Guthrie &

Abeysekera, 2006; Hackston & Milne, 1996). In this research, content analysis is

applied to study and investigate environmental disclosure. Sentences are used as a

unit of analysis to capture the environmental disclosure in the annual and stand-

alone reports. Also, sentences are used to record or measure the environmental

disclosure because sentences can provide a complete, reliable and meaningful data

(Milne & Adler, 1999) and sentences are also more likely to “provide more reliable

measures of inter-rater coding than words” (Hackston & Milne, 1996, p. 86). Content

analysis is applied through three steps; the first step explores and investigates the

volume of corporate environmental disclosure. In the second step, the researcher

classifies the corporate environmental disclosure into three levels of details. In the

third step, the corporate environmental disclosure for each company is classified into

financial information and non-financial information.

100

Chapter 5. Application of content analysis In the last chapter the extractive industry, the methodological framework , and how

this research will be conducted were outlined. In this chapter, interpretative content

analysis is applied to corporate reports of the selected companies to explore

corporate environmental disclosure, consistent with work done by Hackston and

Milne (1996) and Beck et al. (2010).

Content analysis can be seen from two viewpoints: quantitative and qualitative

methods (Duriau et al. 2007; Neuman, 2011). In quantitative research, the

researchers “use objective and systematic counting and recording procedures to

produce a numerical description of the content in a text” (Neuman, 2011, p. 361). But

in qualitative or interpretive research, the content (documents or reports) is seen as

“cultural objective or media that communicate social meaning” (Neuman, 2011, p.

362). According to Harwood and Garry (2003, p. 479) content analysis is “a

technique that enables analysis of ‘open-ended’ data to be structured for purposes of

diagnosis”.

In the content analysis, sentences are often used as a unit of analysis to capture the

data in the annual and stand-alone reports. Sentences are used to measure the

environmental disclosure because sentences can provide the researcher with

complete, reliable and meaningful data (Milne & Adler, 1999) and sentences are also

more likely to “provide more reliable measures of inter-rater coding than words”

(Hackston & Milne, 1996, p. 86).

101

Content analysis is conducted in three steps; the first step explores and investigates

the volume of corporate environmental disclosure for each environmental category.

In the second step, the researcher classifies the corporate environmental disclosure

of the company, that has been highlighted in the first step, into three levels of details;

level 1 (Disclosure addresses issue in pure narrative), level 2 (Disclosure addresses

issue in numerical way) and level 3 (Disclosure addresses issue in numerical way

including qualitative explanation (narrative and quantitative). In the third and last

step, the corporate environmental disclosure for each company is classified into two

categories based on the type of disclosed information. Two categories or types of

information are considered in this step of analysis, first type is financial information

and the second type is non-financial information.

The next sections present the application of content analysis for each researched

company. Also discussion of the results will be provided.

5.1. Woodside Petroleum Company Woodside petroleum was established one year after first oil discovery in Western

Australia. Today, Woodside petroleum is considered as Australia's largest publicly

traded oil and gas exploration and production company and one of the nation's most

successful explorers, developers and producers of oil and gas. It is also the largest

operator of oil and gas production in Australia. Woodside petroleum produces

approximately 800,000 barrels of oil equivalent daily. In 2012, Woodside began

production from the Pluto LNG Project which will add more than 100,000 barrels of

oil equivalent daily to its operated production (WPL, 2012).

102

Generally Woodside Petroleum Company (as shown in Table 5.1) has disclosed

environmental information for most of the categories used in this study. The only

categories that Woodside Limited has not provided any environmental information

about are materials and products and services. In contrast, a large amount of

information has been disclosed in relation to the categories of general environmental

disclosure, sustainability and environmental pollution and waste. As is shown in

Figure 5.1 the environmental disclosure of Woodside Petroleum Limited Company

was low in 2005 and 2006 and there was no big difference between those two years.

In 2007 there was a dramatic increase in the environmental disclosure and a huge

gap between 2006 and 2007. For example, there was a significant increase in

disclosed information related to category 1 (general environmental disclosure) in

2007 when it reached 68 but in 2006 it was just 19. So there was a big difference

between these two years which affected the environmental disclosure in total.

In 2007, Woodside Limited established a sustainability committee. The duties of the

committee included reviewing and making recommendations to the Board on the

company’s policies and performance in relation to the environment, health, safety,

technical integrity and community relations. Furthermore, 2007 is the first year that

Woodside released a sustainability report. All of these internal factors could be a

reasonable explanation behind the increase in the disclosed information in 2007. In

2008 the environmental disclosure started to decrease before it gradually rose again

in 2009. In 2009, there was more focus on category 3 (environmental pollution and

waste) and more disclosed information, especially information related to any spills,

because in this year a number of spills happened, such as hydrocarbon spills

103

totalling 6,260 litres. In 2010 there was a small decline in the environmental

disclosure and there was no big gap compared with 2009.

Table 5.1: Environmental disclosure of Woodside Petroleum (2005-2010)

Categories Environmental disclosure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

1. General environmental disclosure. 14 19 68 43 50 60

2. Sustainability 3 7 45 47 46 58

3. Environmental pollution and waste 9 0 86 68 83 55

4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 0 0 25 2 10 17

6. Biodiversity and land 36 20 23 25 26 19

7. Products and services 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 0 5 5 3 0 0

Total 62 51 252 188 215 209

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

volu

me

years

Environmentaldisclosure

Figure 5.1 Environmental disclosure of Woodside Petroleum (2005-2010)

104

Table 5.2 and Figure 5.2 show the level of details of disclosure of the Woodside

Petroleum Company. As shown below, most of the environmental information has

been disclosed under level 1 and 3, which means that Woodside Petroleum Limited

Company disclosed the information in two levels—disclosure addresses issue in

pure narrative or disclosure addresses issue in numerical way including qualitative

explanation (narrative and quantitative) and ignored the level 2 details (disclosure

addresses issue in numerical way). It can be seen that the level 2 details equal zero

for all years except 2008 rather than that of the disclosed information, which is

divided between level 1 and 3. For example, in 2007 the environmental information

was disclosed under level 1 with 127 and level 3 with 125 and level 2 with 0.

Table 5.2: level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Woodside Petroleum Company

1. General environmental disclosure.

2. Sustainability

3. Environmental pollution and

waste

4. Materials

5. Water

6. Biodiversity

and land

7. Products

and services

8. Other

Total

LDS 2005

1 5 2 1 0 0 11 0 0 19 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 9 1 8 0 0 25 0 0 43

LDS 2006

1 15 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 1 0 0 0 19 0 5 29

LDS 2007

1 50 31 37 0 5 4 0 0 127 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 16 14 49 0 20 19 0 5 125

LDS 2008

1 28 17 32 0 1 11 0 3 92 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 13 30 36 0 1 14 0 0 94

LDS 2009

1 35 31 40 0 0 6 0 0 112 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 15 15 43 0 10 20 0 0 103

LDS 2010

1 47 38 26 0 6 4 0 0 212 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 13 20 29 0 11 15 0 0 88

105

It can be seen from Figure 5.3 that for Woodside Petroleum Company most of the

environmental information is disclosed in a nonfinancial way and there was a big gap

between financial and nonfinancial information. For example in 2005 the financial

disclosed information was 1 and the nonfinancial disclosed information was 61. This

gap was increased in 2007 due to the increase of environmental disclosure in this

year. As can be seen in Table 5.3, category 1.2 (aims and strategies) was 29 and

was disclosed in a nonfinancial way. Also category 3.1 (greenhouse gases

emissions), for example, in 2007 was 32 and it was disclosed in a nonfinancial way,

which reflects the increase of the gap in 2007.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1 2 3

Volu

me

years

LDS 2005

LDS 2006

LDS 2007

LDS 2008

LDS 2009

LDS 2010

Figure 5.2 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Woodside Petroleum Company

106

Table 5.3: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Woodside Petroleum Company

Categories

Type of information

2005

Type of information 2006

Type of information

2007

Type of information

2008

Type of information

2009

Type of information

2010 Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non

1. General environmental disclosure.

0 14 0 19 1 66 0 43 0 50 0 60

2. Sustainability 0 3 0 7 1 43 1.5 46.5 2 56 0.5 57.5

3. Environmental pollution and waste

0 9 0 0 2.5 83.5 1 67 0 83 0 55

4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 2 0 10 0 17

6. Biodiversity and land 1 35 0 20 0.5 22.5 0 25 1 25 0 19

7. Products and services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8. Other 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 3 0 0 0 0

Total 1 61 0 51 5 247 1.5 186.5 3 214 0.5 208.5

Figure 5.3 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Woodside Petroleum Company.

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Volu

me

Years

Financial

Non financial

107

5.2. Origin Energy Origin energy was established in 1946 and it was then known as Boral. In 2000,

Boral shareholders accepted the merger of the energy business from the building

and construction materials business, and the new energy company became known

as Origin Energy. Origin's exploration portfolio includes the Bowen, Surat and

Cooper/Eromanga basins in Central Australia, the Otway and Bass basins in

Southern Australia, as well as interests in the Perth Basin in Western Australia and

the Bonaparte Basin in the Northern Territory. Origin energy also has exploration

projects in New Zealand in the Taranaki, Northland and Canterbury basins, as well

as in Lao PDR, Thailand, Kenya and Vietnam (ORG, 2012).

In regard to Origin Energy, an overall view shows that Origin Energy has disclosed

information for all the categories used in this study. It also shows that the

environmental disclosure fluctuated in the period of the study, shown in Figure 5.4. In

2006 the environmental disclosure decreased by nearly 50 per cent compared with

2005. This decrease was mainly due to the decrease of the environmental

information in some categories as it appears in Table 5.4. For example, there was a

big decline, which nearly reached 50 per cent in category 1 (general environmental

disclosure) and also category 6 (biodiversity and land) reduced from 25 in 2005 to 8

in 2006. In 2007 the environmental disclosure started to rise. Category 3

(environmental pollution and waste) for example increased from 31 in 2006 to 64 in

2007.

In 2007 there was a federal commitment to introduce a national emissions trading

scheme to underpin the costing of carbon into the future. Origin Energy has taken a

108

leadership position in the debate regarding climate change policy. This could affect

the environmental disclosure of Origin Energy in disclosing more information related

to greenhouse gases emissions. In 2008, there was not a big difference in

environmental disclosure, which was stable compared with 2007, but in 2009 it

decreased again because there was a decline in some categories. In 2010

environmental disclosure continued to decreased. This decrease was a reflection of

a significant decrease in some categories. For example, category 2 (sustainability) in

2010 decreased by more than 25 per cent compared with 2009; also category 5

(water) decreased from 11 in 2009 to 3 in 2010. All of the decrease in disclosed

information contributed to a downtrend of the environmental disclosure in 2010.

Table 5.4: Environmental disclosure of Origin Energy (2005-2010)

Categories Environmental disclosure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

1. General environmental disclosure. 55 29 47 49 38 38

2. Sustainability 43 14 34 34 48 32

3. Environmental pollution and waste 57 31 64 58 26 15

4. Materials 2 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 11 4 8 13 11 3

6. Biodiversity and land 25 8 11 17 13 15

7. Products and services 3 15 6 3 3 1

8. Other 0 0 2 0 0 0

Total 196 101 172 174 139 104

109

Figure 5.4 Environmental disclosure of Origin Energy (2005-2010)

Regarding the level of details of environmental disclosure for Origin Energy, it can be

seen that the dominant level of details is level 1 in all periods of the study between

2005 and 2010. This gives a general view that Origin Energy tends to disclose most

of the environmental information in pure narrative. This trend can be seen clearly in

Table 5.5. For example, in 2005, the disclosed information related to category

1 (general environmental disclosure) and was divided as following 45 under level 1 ,

0 under level 2 and 10 under level 3. Even though the general trend of environmental

disclosure was decreasing in recent years, the gap between the three levels of

details decreased as it is shown in Figure 5.5. This decrease in the gap means there

were varied ways used in the presentation of the environmental information and

more balance between the levels of details in the last years of the study period. For

example, the information related to category 3 (environmental pollution and waste)

was classified in 2005 as following 28 under level 1, 0 under level 2 and 9 under

0

50

100

150

200

250

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Volu

me

years

Environmental disclosures

Environmentaldisclosure

110

level 3, but in 2010 the gap between them decreased as it was classified 5 under

level 1, 6 under level 2 and 4 under level 3.

Table 5.5: Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Origin Energy

1. General environmental disclosure.

2. Sustainability

3. Environmental pollution and

waste

4. Materials

5. Water

6. Biodiversity

and land

7. Products

and services

8. Other

Total

LDS 2005

1 45 31 28 1 5 16 0 0 126 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 10 12 29 1 6 9 3 0 70

LDS 2006

1 20 12 13 0 1 6 4 0 56 2 5 0 10 0 3 2 4 0 24 3 4 2 8 0 0 0 7 0 21

LDS 2007

1 42 25 22 0 2 10 6 1 107 2 0 2 27 0 4 0 0 1 34 3 5 8 16 0 2 1 0 0 32

LDS 2008

1 41 18 15 0 6 13 0 0 93 2 5 0 19 0 6 3 1 0 34 3 3 16 24 0 1 1 2 0 47

LDS 2009

1 23 31 4 0 6 9 3 0 76 2 3 0 12 0 4 2 0 0 21 3 11 17 10 0 1 2 0 0 24

LDS 2010

1 23 20 5 0 3 7 0 0 58 2 11 0 6 0 0 2 0 0 18 3 4 12 4 0 0 6 1 0 28

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1 2 3

Volu

me

years

LDS 2005

LDS 2006

LDS 2007

LDS 2008

LDS 2009

LDS 2010

Figure 5.5 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Origin Energy

111

As it is clearly seen in Figure 5.6, most of disclosed environmental information for

Origin Energy was nonfinancial information in all years of the study. In contrast,

sometimes the financial information nearly reached zero. In Table 5.6, for example,

in 2005 the financial environmental information was 0.5 and in the same year the

nonfinancial environmental information was 195.5, this difference is reflected in

Figure 5.6 as a major gap between the two types of disclosed information (financial

and nonfinancial). Also it can be seen that the curve of nonfinancial information

follows the trend of environmental disclosure of Origin Energy, the nonfinancial

information is the dominant type in all periods of the study. However, there was not a

significant improvement in the financial information trend, as it was stable in all years

except the last year when there was a little increase.

Table 5.6: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Origin energy

Categories

Type of information

2005

Type of information 2006

Type of information

2007

Type of information

2008

Type of information

2009

Type of information

2010 Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non

1. General environmental disclosure.

0 55 4 25 0 47 2 47 1 37 3 35

2. Sustainability 0 43 0 14 3.5 30.5 1 33 1 47 3.5 28.5

3. Environmental pollution and waste

0 57 0 31 3 61 0 58 1 25 0.5 14.5

4. Materials 0.5 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 0 11 0 4 0 8 0 13 0 11 0 3

6. Biodiversity and land 0 25 2 6 0 11 2 15 2 11 6 9

7. Products and services 0 3 1 14 0 6 1 2 0 3 0 1 8. Other 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0.5 195.5 7 94 7.5 164.5 6 168 5 134 13 91

112

Figure 5.6 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Origin energy

5.3. Santos Santos was established in 1954, its name being an acronym for South Australia

Northern Territory Oil Search. Santos is one of the leading gas producers in

Australia, supplying Australian and Asian customers. Santos has been providing

Australia with natural gas for more than 40 years. In 2011, Santos’ total production

was 47.2 million barrels of oil equivalent. Santos has the largest Australian

exploration and production portfolio by area of any company – 152,360 square

kilometres. Santos also has about 2,800 employees working across its operations in

Australia and Asia (STO, 2012).

As it can be seen in the Table 5.7 and Figure 5.7, environmental disclosure of

Santos significantly improved in the first three years of the study between 2006 and

2008. In Figure 5.7, it can be seen that environmental disclosure in 2008 had more

than doubled compared with 2005. The increase was because Santos disclosed

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Volu

me

years

Financial

Non financial

113

more information in 2008 for all categories used, while in 2005 there was not any

disclosed information for most of the categories. In 2006, Santos released the first

sustainability report as one of the components of Santos’ framework for managing

sustainability. Santos tried in this report to improve the key indicators of sustainability

such as environment, health and safety, ethics and conduct, training, and community

relations. Therefore more information has been released to the public since 2006 in

relation to the environment, which improves the environmental disclosure of Santos.

In Table 5.7 for example, category 2 (sustainability) in 2005 was 13 but this category

was improved in 2008 to reach 50. In 2009, however, environmental disclosure was

decreased due to some shortage of the disclosed information, but it recovered again

in 2010 and started to increase gradually.

Table 5.7: Environmental disclosure of Santos (2005-2010)

Categories Environmental disclosure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

1. General environmental disclosure. 16 63 44 42 34 52

2. Sustainability 13 38 30 50 44 66

3. Environmental pollution and waste 12 32 55 62 38 23

4. Materials 0 2 2 1 1 0

5. Water 1 8 17 15 19 18

6. Biodiversity and land 30 28 30 14 24 25

7. Products and services 0 5 10 5 2 4

8. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 72 176 188 189 163 188

114

According to Figure 5.8, the level 1 detail is the dominant level between the three

levels used in this study. For all periods of this study between 2005 and 2010 most

of the environmental information was disclosed in pure narrative rather that disclosed

in a numerical way or a numerical way including qualitative explanation. There is a

large gap between level 1 and other two levels of details, and this is because Santos

tended to disclose some kinds of environmental information in pure narrative. In

Table 5.8 for example, category 1 (general environmental disclosure), in 2005 was

classified as following: 5 under level 1, zero under level 2 and 2 under level 3.

Despite a significant improvement in environmental disclosure by Santos in the first

three years of the study period, the gap between the three levels remains the same

without any balance or has sometimes increased. An example of this, is that

category 1 (general environmental disclosure) in 2008 was classified as following 38

under level 1, zero under level 2 and 4 under level 3, which means that the gap

increased significantly in 2008 compared with 2005.

020406080

100120140160180200

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Volu

me

years

Environmental disclosures

Environmentaldisclosure

Figure 5.7 Environmental disclosure of Santos (2005-2010)

115

Table 5.8: Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Santos

1. General environmental disclosure.

2. Sustainability

3. Environmental pollution and

waste

4. Materials

5. Water

6. Biodiversity

and land

7. Products

and services

8. Other

Total

LDS 2005

1 5 11 11 0 0 23 0 0 59 2 0 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 6 3 2 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 7

LDS 2006

1 51 36 20 0 7 26 5 0 145 2 4 2 6 0 0 1 0 0 13 3 8 0 6 2 1 1 0 0 18

LDS 2007

1 40 28 39 0 14 24 9 0 154 2 2 0 9 1 1 1 0 0 14 3 2 2 7 1 2 3 1 0 18

LDS 2008

1 38 43 25 0 12 10 5 0 142 2 0 5 10 1 0 3 0 0 19 3 4 2 12 0 3 1 0 0 28

LDS 2009

1 32 30 21 1 15 12 2 0 113 2 1 11 10 0 1 5 0 0 28 3 1 3 7 1 3 7 0 0 22

LDS 2010

1 32 50 8 0 12 18 1 0 126 2 10 8 11 0 2 6 0 0 37 3 5 8 4 0 4 1 3 0 25

As is presented in Figure 5.9, Santos disclosed most of its environmental information

using the nonfinancial information type. For all periods of this study, nonfinancial

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1 2 3

Volu

me

level of details

LDS 2005

LDS 2006

LDS 2007

LDS 2008

LDS 2009

LDS 2010

Figure 5.8 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Santos

116

environmental information represented a big percentage of all environmental

information disclosed. In contrast financial environmental information in some years

declined to reach nearly 2 % as it was in 2007. There was also a great gap between

financial and nonfinancial information. For example, in 2005, the financial

environmental information was 6.5 and in the same year the nonfinancial

environmental information was 65, which means the financial environmental

information represent just 10 % of nonfinancial information. Furthermore, this gap

significantly increased as the environmental disclosure of Santos increased, because

Santos disclosed most of its environmental information in the nonfinancial

information type. As Table 5.9 shows, in 2005 the disclosed information was

classified as 6.5 financial information and 65 nonfinancial information and in 2010

the disclosed information was classified as 8 financial information and 180

nonfinancial information, so there was not a huge difference in financial information

as there was in nonfinancial information.

Table 5.9: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Santos

Categories

Type of information

2005

Type of information 2006

Type of information

2007

Type of information

2008

Type of information

2009

Type of information

2010 Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non

1. General environmental disclosure.

0 16 4 59 0 44 1 41 2 32 2 50

2. Sustainability 0.5 12.5 0 38 2 28 0 50 0 44 0 66

3. Environmental pollution and waste

0 12 1 31 2 53 0 62 0 38 0 23

4. Materials 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 0

5. Water 0 1 0 8 0 17 0 15 0 19 0 18

6. Biodiversity and land 6 24 6 22 0 28 6 8 4 20 5 20

7. Products and services 0 0 0 5 0 10 0 5 0 2 1 3 8. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 6.5 65.5 11 165 4 184 8 181 6 157 8 180

117

Figure 5.9 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Santos

5.4. Oil Search

Oil search was incorporated in Papua New Guinea (PNG) in 1929. It has a 29%

interest in the world scale PNG LNG Project, operated by ExxonMobil, which

commenced full construction in March 2010 with first LNG sales scheduled for 2014.

It is considered as one of PNG’s largest companies in Australia. Oil Search has a

wide exploration land portfolio in PNG, covering approximately 20,600 square

kilometres. It employs approximately 1,000 full-time staff and over 1,200 contractors

located in PNG, Australia, Yemen, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Iraq and

Tunisia (OSH, 2012).

The environmental disclosure for Oil Search appeared to be stable in the period

between 2005 and 2009 and there were not great differences between these years.

Also the environmental disclosure was poor in this period of time as is presented in

-50

0

50

100

150

200

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Volu

me

years

Financial

Non financial

118

Figure 5.10. It is clearly shown in Table 5.10 that most of the categories have no

related information that has been disclosed in this period and the rest of the

categories just have a small amount of information. For example, category 4

(materials) and category 5 (water) have not any related disclosed information in the

period between 2005 and 2009. In 2010, the environmental disclosure of Oil Search

dramatically increased to reach a peak. For example, in category 2 (sustainability)

the amount of disclosed information was 48 in 2010 but in the previous years such

as 2005 it was 1. Also in 2010, category 6 (biodiversity and land) was 66 but in 2009

was 25. So this great increase in the amount of information for each category

affected the environmental disclosure of Oil Search in 2010. The possible reason for

this improvement could be a result of Oil Search taking a step toward sustainability,

which resulted in the first annual Sustainability Report released in 2010. Establishing

the Sustainability Report means more information was disclosed in relation to all

areas of sustainability, such as environment, community, and health and safety,

which in turn improved the environmental disclosure.

Table 5.10: Environmental disclosure of Oil Search (2005-2010)

Categories Environmental disclosure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

1. General environmental disclosure. 13 17 9 17 16 70

2. Sustainability 1 4 2 6 11 48

3. Environmental pollution and waste 1 0 3 2 3 74

4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 5

5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 21

6. Biodiversity and land 17 18 9 18 25 66

7. Products and services 0 0 0 0 0 4

8. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 32 39 23 43 55 288

119

Regarding the level of details, for Oil Search most of the environmental information

was classified as level 1 of detail, which means that Oil Search tended to disclose

the information in pure narrative. As it is clearly seen in Figure 5.11, level 1 is

dominant in Oil Search and it was mostly double compared with the other two levels.

For example, as is mentioned below in Table 5.11, in 2005 the environmental

disclosure of Oil Search was classified as following 20 under level 1, 5 under level 2

and 7 under level 3, So more than 50 % of the environmental information was

disclosed in pure narrative, which could be seen as a great gap. In 2010 the gap

between level 1 of details and the other two types of details was significantly

increased due to the increase of the environmental disclosure in 2010. For example

in Table 5.11, the information disclosed in category 3 (environmental pollution and

waste) in 2010, was classified as following: 49 under level 1, 12 under level 2 and 13

under level 3.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Volu

me

years

Environmental disclosures

Environmentaldisclosure

Figure 5.10 Environmental disclosure of Oil Search (2005-2010)

120

Table 5.11: Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Oil Search

1. General environmental disclosure.

2. Sustainability

3. Environmental pollution and

waste

4. Materials

5. Water

6. Biodiversity

and land

7. Products

and services

8. Other

Total

LDS 2005

1 4 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 20 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 3 0 0 1 0 0 6 0 0 7

LDS 2006

1 17 4 0 0 0 9 0 0 30 2 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

LDS 2007

1 9 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 14 2 0 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 8 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

LDS 2008

1 17 6 0 0 0 9 0 0 32 2 0 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 8 3 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3

LDS 2009

1 16 11 1 0 0 16 0 0 44 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 4 3 0 0 1 0 0 6 0 0 7

LDS 2010

1 70 40 49 3 13 45 0 0 220 2 0 6 12 1 6 7 0 0 32 3 0 2 13 1 2 14 4 0 36

0

50

100

150

200

250

1 2 3

Volu

me

level of detail

LDS 2005

LDS 2006

LDS 2007

LDS 2008

LDS 2009

LDS 2010

Figure 5.11 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Oil Search

121

Figure 5.12 and Table 5.12 show that in Oil Search most of the environmental

information was disclosed as nonfinancial information in all the study period. In some

years the gap between the two types was significant and the nonfinancial

environmental information was more than double the financial environmental

information. For example, in 2005 the nonfinancial environmental information was 24

while the financial environmental information was 8, which means it was one third of

nonfinancial environmental information. In 2010, there was not a big change in

financial information and it was stable compared with previous years. In contrast,

nonfinancial information increased dramatically compared with 2009 and reached

271 in 2010.

Table 5.12: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Oil Search

Categories

Type of information

2005

Type of information 2006

Type of information

2007

Type of information

2008

Type of information

2009

Type of information

2010 Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non

1. General environmental disclosure.

0 13 0 17 0 9 0 17 0 16 0 70

2. Sustainability 0 1 0 4 0 2 0 6 0 11 2 46

3. Environmental pollution and waste

0 1 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 3 2 72

4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21

6. Biodiversity and land 8 9 9 9 7 2 12 6 14 11 13 53

7. Products and services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

8. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 8 24 9 30 7 16 12 31 14 41 17 271

122

Figure 5.12 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Oil Search

5.5. WorleyParsons Worleyparsons, under its previious name of Worley, is a result of a merge between

Smith, de Kantzow & Wholohan in 1971. In 2002, Worley became a publicly listed

company on the Australian Stock Exchange leading to a period of acquisitions of

increasing magnitude around the globe, including companies in Canada, Oman, and

China. In 2004, Worley merged operations with Parsons E&C, which has a widely

recognised reputation for its high quality project services to the Power, Oil and Gas,

Refining, Petrochemicals and Chemicals sectors globally, and commenced trading

as WorleyParsons (WOR, 2012).

In WorleyParsons, environmental disclosure in the first three years appears to

fluctuate and there was not a big gap between them. Also the environmental

disclosure was poor in this period of time as is presented in Figure 5.13. As is clearly

shown in Table 5.13, some of the categories have no related information that has

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Volu

me

years

Financial

Non financial

123

been disclosed in this period and the rest of the categories just have a small amount

of information. For example, category 2 (sustainability) has not much information as

it was 1 in 2005, 0 in 2006 and 5 in 2007 and category 7 (products and services) has

not got any related disclosed information in the period between 2005 and 2010.

However, there was an increase in the environmental disclosure in 2009. This

increase may be because in 2009 WorleyParsons worked on its responsibility in

relation to the communities and the environment in which they worked, as reported in

their annual report in 2009. In 2010, there was a small decrease in the curve of

environmental disclosure but it was still in the same level as 2009.

Table 5.13: Environmental disclosure of WorleyParsons (2005-2010)

Categories Environmental disclosure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

1. General environmental disclosure. 14 20 13 14 21 20

2. Sustainability 1 0 5 1 4 6

3. Environmental pollution and waste 4 2 0 4 7 3

4. Materials 0 3 3 3 3 3

5. Water 4 0 0 1 2 3

6. Biodiversity and land 4 2 0 0 2 2

7. Products and services 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 27 27 21 23 39 37

124

In relation to the level of details, in WorleyParsons, most of the environmental

information was disclosed under level 1 of details, which means that WorleyParsons

tended to disclose the information in pure narrative. For example, as is mentioned

below in Table 5.14, in 2005 the environmental disclosure of WorleyParsons was

classified as following: 32 under level 1, 0 under level 2 and 4 under level 3. So more

than 85 per cent of the environmental information was disclosed in pure narrative,

which could be seen as a great gap. In 2009 and 2010 the gap between the level 1

of details and other two types of details was significantly increased. For example in

Table 5.14, the information disclosed in category 1 (general environmental

disclosure) in 2010,was classified as following: 18 under level 1, 2 under level 2 and

0 under level 3.

05

1015202530354045

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Volu

me

years

Environmental disclosures

Environmentaldisclosure

Figure 5.13 Environmental disclosure of WorleyParsons (2005-2010)

125

Table 5.14: Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of WorleyParsons

1. General environmental disclosure.

2. Sustainability

3. Environmental pollution and

waste

4. Materials

5. Water

6. Biodiversity

and land

7. Products

and services

8. Other

Total

LDS 2005

1 14 1 4 0 4 0 0 0 32 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4

LDS 2006

1 19 0 2 3 0 2 0 0 26 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

LDS 2007

1 13 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

LDS 2008

1 14 1 4 3 1 0 0 0 23 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

LDS 2009

1 19 3 6 3 2 2 0 0 35 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3

LDS 2010

1 18 6 3 3 3 2 0 0 35 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Figure 5.14 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of WorleyParsons

As it is presented in Figure 5.15, WorleyParsons disclosed most of its environmental

information using the nonfinancial information type. For all periods of this study

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 2 3

Volu

me

level of detail

LDS 2005

LDS 2006

LDS 2007

LDS 2008

LDS 2009

LDS 2010

126

nonfinancial environmental information represented a high percentage of all

environmental information disclosed. In contrast, financial environmental information

in some years declined to reach 0 per cent as it was in 2005. There was also a great

gap between financial and nonfinancial information. For example in 2005 the

financial environmental information was zero and in the same year the nonfinancial

environmental information was 27. Furthermore, this gap significantly increased as

the environmental disclosure of Santos increased, because WorleyParsons

disclosed most of its environmental information in nonfinancial information type. As

Table 5.15 shows, in 2008 the disclosed information was classified as 3 for financial

information and 20 for nonfinancial information and in 2009 the disclosed information

was classified as 4 for financial information and 35 for nonfinancial information. So

there was not as great an improvement in financial information as there was in

nonfinancial information.

Table 5.15: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of WorleyParsons

Categories

Type of information

2005

Type of information 2006

Type of information

2007

Type of information

2008

Type of information

2009

Type of information

2010 Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non

1. General environmental disclosure.

0 14 1 19 0 13 0 14 1 20 1 19

2. Sustainability 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 4 0 6

3. Environmental pollution and waste

0 4 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 7 0 3

4. Materials 0 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0

5. Water 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 3

6. Biodiversity and land 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

7. Products and services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 27 4 23 3 18 3 20 4 35 4 33

127

Figure 5.15 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of WorleyParsons

5.6. Karoon Gas Australia Karoon Gas Australia Limited (KAR) invests in exploration and evaluation projects

for hydrocarbons offshore in Australia, Brazil and Peru. KAR currently has five

projects, the producing Browse Basin offshore gas reservoirs and the Bonaparte

Basin (Western Australia), the Tumbes and Maranon Basins (Peru) and the Santos

Basin (Brazil) (ASX, 2012).

Environmental disclosure of Karoon Gas Australia was very poor in the first three

years of the period of study between 2005 and 2007. There was not sufficient

information being disclosed in these years. Moreover, for most of the categories

there was not any information. For example, in Table 5.16 the categories 2

(sustainability), 3 (environmental pollution and waste), 4 (materials), 5 (water) and

category 7 (products and services) have not got any disclosed information in the first

four years between 2005 and 2008 and some of them for the whole period of the

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Volu

me

years

Financial

Non financial

128

study. However, an increase in environmental disclosure happened in 2008 and

2009 due to the increase of the information released under category 1 and 6.

Table 5.16: Environmental disclosure of Karoon Gas Australia (2005-2010)

Categories Environmental disclosure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

1. General environmental disclosure. 9 13 10 13 26 23

2. Sustainability 0 0 0 0 6 3

3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 0 0 6 6

4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 10 9 6 24 13 13

7. Products and services 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 19 22 16 37 51 45

Figure 5.16 Environmental disclosure of Karoon Gas Australia (2005-2010)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Volu

me

years

Environmental disclosures

Environmentaldisclosure

129

According to Figure 5.17, in Karoon Gas Australia the level 1 and 3 of details are the

dominant levels between the three levels used in this study. For all periods of this

study between 2005 and 2010 most of the environmental information was disclosed

in pure narrative or numerical way including qualitative explanation rather than

disclosed in a numerical way. There is a large gap between level 2 and the other two

levels of details. In Table 5.17 for example, the environmental disclosure in 2005

was classified as following: 9 under level 1, 1 under level 2 and 9 under level 3.

Despite the development of environmental disclosure of Karoon Gas Australia in the

last three years of the study period, the gap between the three levels remains the

same without any balance or sometimes an increased gap. An example of this, is

that environmental disclosure in 2009 was classified as following: 40 under level 1,

zero under level 2 and 11 under level 3 which means that the gap increased

significantly in 2009 compared with 2005.

Table 5.17: Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Karoon Gas Australia

1. General environmental disclosure.

2. Sustainability

3. Environmental pollution and

waste

4. Materials

5. Water

6. Biodiversity

and land

7. Products

and services

8. Other

Total

LDS 2005

1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 9

LDS 2006

1 10 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 13 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 9

LDS 2007

1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5

LDS 2008

1 4 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 15

LDS 2009

1 26 6 6 0 0 2 0 0 40 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 11

LDS 2010

1 23 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 32 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 13

130

Figure 5.18 shows that for Karoon Gas Australia, most of the environmental

information was disclosed as nonfinancial information in all study periods. The gap

between the two types was big and the environmental disclosure was presented as

nonfinancial environmental information for most of the study period. For example in

the years of 2005, 2007,2008,2009 and 2010 the financial environmental information

was zero while the financial environmental information in 2006 was 1, which means

that all of the environmental information was nonfinancial environmental information

in the annual reports. In 2010, the environmental disclosure of Karoon Gas Australia,

did not change in financial information and the nonfinancial information increased

dramatically compared with 2005- 2006.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1 2 3

Volu

me

level of detail

LDS 2005

LDS 2006

LDS 2007

LDS 2008

LDS 2009

LDS 2010

Figure 5.17 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Karoon Gas Australia

131

Table 5.18: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Karoon Gas Australia

Categories

Type of information

2005

Type of information 2006

Type of information

2007

Type of information

2008

Type of information

2009

Type of information

2010 Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non

1. General environmental disclosure.

0 9 0 13 0 10 0 13 0 26 0 23

2. Sustainability 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 3

3. Environmental pollution and waste

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6

4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 0 10 1 8 0 6 0 24 0 13 0 13

7. Products and services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 19 1 21 0 16 0 37 0 51 0 45

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Volu

me

years

Financial

Non financial

Figure 5.18 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Karoon Gas Australia

132

5.7. Aurora oil and Gas Aurora Oil & Gas Limited is an Australian Stock Exchange listed (ASX: AUT) and

Toronto Stock Exchange listed company (TSX: AEF) focused on oil and gas

exploration and production in North America. Aurora now participates in over 77, 000

gross acres in the heart of the Eagle Ford Shale including over 19,300 net acres

within the liquid rich zones of the trend. The drilling program for 2012 is very active

with the expectation that over 150 wells will be drilled and completed, more than

doubling the approximately 69 wells drilled in 2011 (AUT, 2012).

Environmental disclosure of Aurora Oil and Gas was very poor in the first two years

of the period of study between 2005 and 2006. There was not sufficient information

that had been disclosed in these years. Moreover, for most of the categories there

was not any information. For example, in Table 5.19 categories 2 (sustainability),

and 3 (environmental pollution and waste) have not got any disclosed information in

the first four years between 2005 and 2008 and some of them for the whole period of

the study, such as 4 (materials), 5 (water) and category 7 (products and services).

However, an increase in environmental disclosure happened in 2007 due to the

increase of the information released under category 1 (general environmental

disclosure) and 6 (biodiversity and land). After 2007 the environmental disclosure

started to decrease and this decrease continued until 2010

133

Table 5.19: Environmental disclosure of Aurora oil and Gas (2005-2010)

Categories Environmental disclosure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

1. General environmental disclosure. 5 2 5 5 4 3

2. Sustainability 0 0 0 0 0 2

3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 0 0 1 1

4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 3 9 19 15 13 12

7. Products and services 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 8 11 24 20 18 18

Chart 5.19: Environmental disclosure of Aurora oil and Gas (2005-2010

According to Figure 5.20, for Aurora Oil and Gas, the level 1 and 3 of details are the

dominant level between the three levels used in this study. For all periods of this

study between 2005 and 2010, most of the environmental information was disclosed

in pure narrative or numerical way including qualitative explanation rather than

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Volu

me

years

Environmental disclosures

Environmentaldisclosures

Figure 5.199. Environmental disclosure of Aurora oil and Gas (2005-2010)

Figure 5.19 Environmental disclosure of Aurora oil and Gas (2005-2010)

134

disclosed in a numerical way. There is a large gap between the level 2 and other two

levels of details, and this is because Aurora Oil and Gas tended to disclose some

kind of environmental information in pure narrative and in a numerical way including

qualitative explanation. In Table 5.20 for example, the environmental disclosure in

2006 was classified as following: 7 under level 1, zero under level 2 and 4 under

level 3. Despite the development of environmental disclosure of Aurora Oil and Gas

in 2007, the gap between the three levels increased. In 2007, the environmental

disclosure was classified as following: 12 under level 1, zero under level 2 and 12

under level 3, which means that the gap increased significantly in 2007 compared

with 2005.

Table 5.20: Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Aurora oil and Gas

1. General environmental disclosure.

2. Sustainability

3. Environmental pollution and

waste

4. Materials

5. Water

6. Biodiversity

and land

7. Products

and services

8. Other

Total

LDS 2005

1 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

LDS 2006

1 2 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4

LDS 2007

1 5 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 12

LDS 2008

1 5 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 13 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 7

LDS 2009

1 4 0 1 0 0 6 0 0 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5

LDS 2010

1 3 2 1 0 0 8 0 0 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3

135

Figure 5.21 shows that for Aurora Oil and Gas most of the environmental information

was disclosed as nonfinancial information in all study periods. The gap between the

two types had nearly disappeared in 2006 but in 2007 as the environmental

disclosure increased this gap significantly increased to reach a peak. In 2007 the

financial information was one third of the nonfinancial information. In the last three

years of the study period between 2008 and 2010, most of the environmental

information was presented as nonfinancial environmental information. For example

in 2008 the financial environmental information was 7 while the nonfinancial

environmental information was 13.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1 2 3

Volu

me

level of detail

LDS 2005

LDS 2006

LDS 2007

LDS 2008

LDS 2009

LDS 2010

Figure 5.20 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Aurora oil and Gas

136

Table 5.21: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Aurora oil and Gas

Categories

Type of information

2005

Type of information 2006

Type of information

2007

Type of information

2008

Type of information

2009

Type of information

2010 Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non

1. General environmental disclosure.

0 5 0 2 0 5 0 5 0 4 0 3

2. Sustainability 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

3. Environmental pollution and waste

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 1 2 5 4 6 13 7 8 6 7 7 5

7. Products and services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 1 7 5 6 6 18 7 13 6 12 7 11

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Volu

me

years

Financial

Non financial

Figure 5.21 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Aurora oil and Gas

137

5.8. Beach petroleum Beach Energy, which is now known as Beach Petroleum, was established in the

early 1960s by Dr. Reg Sprigg. He was a highly regarded Australian oilman,

geologist, explorer and conservationist. Beach Petroleum's assets grew steadily

through the 1960s, 70s and early 80s, by which time it held a broad range of

promising exploration and production tenements, plus a long term revenue base,

extensive cash reserves from its recent oil and gas discoveries. In FY12 Beach

Petroleum produces approximately 7.5 million barrels of oil equivalent annually. It

also has also oil and gas reserves of 92.8 million barrels of oil equivalent and

contigent resources of 466.6 million barrels of oil equivalent (at 30 June 2012) (BPT,

2012).

The environmental disclosure of Beach Petroleum in the first two years was stable

for the whole period of the study. However, it was poor and there was not any

significant improvement that could be highlighted in the environmental disclosure.

Moreover, the gap between 2005 and 2010 was small because the environmental

disclosure increased slowly. For example as Table 5.22 shows, the environmental

disclosure in 2006 was 22, in 2007 it was 26 and in 2010 it was 30, so there was not

a great improvement or significant gap. Also, in some categories there was not any

disclosed information for the whole period of study. For example category 2

(sustainability), category 4 (materials) and category 7 (products and services) have

not got any disclosed information, which affected the environmental disclosure of

Beach Petroleum in general.

138

Table 5.22: Environmental disclosure of Beach Petroleum (2005-2010)

Categories Environmental disclosure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

1. General environmental disclosure. 6 4 5 5 5 5

2. Sustainability 0 0 0 0 0 0

3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 1 1 2 3

4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 0 0 0 0 1 1

6. Biodiversity and land 16 18 20 17 17 21

7. Products and services 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 22 22 26 23 25 30

Figure 5.22 Environmental disclosure of Beach petroleum (2005-2010)

According to Figure 5.23, in Beach Petroleum the level 1 of details is the dominant

level between the three levels used in this study. For all periods of this study

between 2005 and 2010 most of the environmental information was disclosed in pure

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Volu

me

years

Environmental disclosures

Environmentaldisclosure

139

narrative rather than disclosed in a numerical way or numerical way including

qualitative explanation. There is also a large gap between the level 1 and other two

levels of details. In Table 5.23 for example, category 1 (general environmental

disclosure) in 2005 was classified as following: 6 under level 1, zero under level 2

and zero under level 3. The gap between the three levels decreased in 2010

because the information under level 2 increased. For example, the level 2 of details

of disclosure in 2008 was 5, in 2009 it was 6 and in 2010 was 9. Also in some

categories the information under level 1 was higher than the other two levels. An

example of this is category 6 (biodiversity and land), which in 2010 was classified as

following: 6 under level 1, 9 under level 2 and 7 under level 3.

Table 5.23: Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Beach petroleum

1. General environmental disclosure.

2. Sustainability

3. Environmental pollution and

waste

4. Materials

5. Water

6. Biodiversity

and land

7. Products

and services

8. Other

Total

LDS 2005

1 6 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5

LDS 2006

1 4 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5

LDS 2007

1 5 0 1 0 0 9 0 0 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 6

LDS 2008

1 5 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 13 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5

LDS 2009

1 5 0 2 0 1 7 0 0 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4

LDS 2010

1 5 0 3 0 1 6 0 0 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 7

140

As it is clearly seen in Figure 5.24, most of disclosed environmental information in

Beach Petroleum was nonfinancial information in all years of the study. In contrast,

sometimes financial information was zero or nearly reached zero. In Table 5.24, for

example, in 2005 the financial environmental information was 3 and in the same year

the nonfinancial environmental information was 19. Also in 2006, the financial

environmental information was zero, which is reflected in Figure 5.24 as a big gap

between the two types of disclosed information (financial and nonfinancial). In

addition, it can be seen that the curve of nonfinancial information takes the trend of

the environmental disclosure of Beach Petroleum, as the nonfinancial information is

the dominant type in all periods of the study. In contrast, there was no significant

improvement in the financial information trend, as it was stable in all years except the

last year when it increased a little.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1 2 3

Volu

me

level of detai

LDS 2005

LDS 2006

LDS 2007

LDS 2008

LDS 2009

LDS 2010

Figure 5.23 Level of details of disclosure (LDS) of Beach petroleum

141

Table 5.24: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Beach petroleum

Categories

Type of information

2005

Type of information 2006

Type of information

2007

Type of information

2008

Type of information

2009

Type of information

2010 Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non

1. General environmental disclosure.

0 6 0 4 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5

2. Sustainability 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3. Environmental pollution and waste

0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 3

4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

6. Biodiversity and land 3 13 0 18 3 17 3 14 3 14 4 17

7. Products and services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 3 19 0 22 3 23 3 20 4 21 5 25

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Volu

me

years

Financial

Non financial

Figure 5.24 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Beach petroleum

142

5.9. AWE AWE is an Australian oil and gas exploration and production company listed on the

Australian Stock Exchange (ASX). AWE was established to appraise oil and gas

discoveries in its initial asset portfolio and to build a significant international

petroleum exploration and development. The company's focus includes currently

marginal fields, whose worth may be improved by innovative appraisal and

development approaches. AWE also has a number of exploration opportunities both

in Australia and overseas (AWE, 2012).

The environmental disclosure in AWE appeared to be stable in the period between

2005 and 2007 and there were no great differences between these years. Also the

environmental disclosure was poor in this period of time as is presented in Figure

5.25. As is clearly shown in Table 5.25, most of the categories have no related

information that has been disclosed in this period and the rest of the categories have

just a small amount of information. For example, category 4 (materials) and category

5 (water) have not got any related disclosed information in the period between 2005

and 2009. After 2007 the environmental disclosure of AWE dramatically increased to

reach a peak in 2009. This increase was due to the increase in the amount of

information disclosed in most of the categories. For example, in category 2

(sustainability) the amount of disclosed information was 27 in 2009 but in the

previous years such as 2005 it was 0, also category 6 (biodiversity and land) was 25

in 2009 but in 2005 it was 18. So this great increase in the amount of information for

each category affected the environmental disclosure of AWE in 2009. However, in

2010 the trend of environmental disclosure took the opposite direction and there had

been a great decrease. The main reason for this was the decrease of disclosed

143

information in category 3 (environmental pollution and waste). As is shown in Table

5.25 category 3 (environmental pollution and waste) in 2009 was 42 and in 2010 it

was 23. So it can be clearly seen that there was a great gap between these two

years, which was reflected in the environmental disclosure in general.

Table 5.25: Environmental disclosure of AWE (2005-2010)

Categories Environmental disclosure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

1. General environmental disclosure. 11 12 13 29 49 49

2. Sustainability 0 0 0 10 27 14

3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 0 15 42 23

4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 0 0 0 0 1 1

6. Biodiversity and land 18 14 18 21 25 27

7. Products and services 0 0 0 0 2 1

8. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 29 26 31 75 146 115

Figure 5.25 Environmental disclosure of AWE (2005-2010)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Volu

me

years

Environmental disclosures

Environmentaldisclosure

144

Regarding the level of details, in AWE, most of the environmental information was

disclosed under the level 1 of detail which means that Oil Search tended to disclose

the information in pure narrative. As is clearly seen in Figure 5.26, level 1 is

dominant in AWE. For example, as is mentioned below in Table 5.26, in 2005 the

environmental disclosure of Oil Search was classified as following: 24 under level 1,

3 under level 2 and 2 under level 3, So more than 80 % of the environmental

information was disclosed in pure narrative which could be seen as a large gap. In

2009 the gap between the level 1 of details and other two types of details was

significantly increased due to the increase of the environmental disclosure in 2009.

For example in Table 5.26, the information disclosed in category 1 (general

environmental disclosure) was classified as following: 47 under level 1, zero under

level 2 and 2 under level 3, and the information disclosed in category 3

(environmental pollution and waste) in 2009 was classified as following 31 under

level 1, 6 under level 2 and 5 under level 3.

Table 5.26: Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of AWE

1. General environmental disclosure.

2. Sustainability

3. Environmental pollution and

waste

4. Materials

5. Water

6. Biodiversity

and land

7. Products

and services

8. Other

Total

LDS 2005

1 11 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 24 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2

LDS 2006

1 12 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 24 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

LDS 2007

1 13 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 25 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2

LDS 2008

1 29 10 12 0 0 17 0 0 68 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 5

LDS 2009

1 47 27 31 0 0 15 2 0 122 2 0 0 6 0 0 4 0 0 10 3 2 0 5 0 1 6 0 0 14

LDS 2010

1 48 14 15 0 0 15 1 0 93 2 0 0 7 0 0 4 0 0 11 3 1 0 2 0 1 8 0 0 12

145

Figure 5.27 shows that for Oil Search most of the environmental information was

disclosed as nonfinancial information in all study periods. There was a big gap

between the two types; the nonfinancial environmental information was more than

double the financial environmental information. For example, in 2005 the

nonfinancial environmental information was 22.5 while the financial environmental

information was 6.5, which meant it was one third of nonfinancial environmental

information. This gap started to increase after 2007 as a result of increased

environmental disclosure by AWE and in 2009 the gap between two types reached

their peak. For the whole period of study there was not a big change in financial

information. In contrast, in 2009, nonfinancial information increased dramatically

compared with previous years.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1 2 3

Volu

me

level of detail

LDS 2005

LDS 2006

LDS 2007

LDS 2008

LDS 2009

LDS 2010

Figure 5.26 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of AWE

146

Table 5.27: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of AWE

Categories

Type of information

2005

Type of information 2006

Type of information

2007

Type of information

2008

Type of information

2009

Type of information

2010 Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non

1. General environmental disclosure.

0 11 0 12 0 13 0 29 0 49 0 49

2. Sustainability 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 27 0 14

3. Environmental pollution and waste

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 4.5 37.5 1 22

4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

6. Biodiversity and land 6.5 11.5 6 8 6 12 7 14 6 19 6 21

7. Products and services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 8. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 6.5 22.5 6 20 6 25 7 68 10.5 135.5 7 108

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Volu

me

years

Financial

Non financial

Figure 5.27 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of AWE

147

5.10. Eastern Star Gas Eastern Star Gas (ESG) is an Australian Coal Seam Gas exploration, development

and Production Company listed on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX). Eastern

Star Gas’s focus is the Narrabri Coal Seam Gas Project. ESG holds a 65% interest

in and is Operator of the project. ESG operates in an area covered by more than

41,800 km² (10.4 million acres) of the Gunnedah Basin (ESG, 2011).

In Eastern Star Gas environmental disclosure in all the years appears to fluctuate

and there was not a big gap between them. Also the environmental disclosure was

poor in this period of time as is presented in Figure 5.28. As is clearly shown in Table

5.28, some of the categories have no related information that has been disclosed in

this period and the rest of the categories have just a small amount of information. For

example, category 2 (sustainability) and category 7 (products and services) have no

information. In contrast, other categories had just a small amount of information such

as category 4 (materials), which has little information, as it was zero in 2005, 1 in

2006- 2009 and 3 in 2010.

Table 5.28: Environmental disclosure of Eastern Star Gas (2005-2010)

Categories Environmental disclosure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

1. General environmental disclosure. 7 7 11 4 7 6

2. Sustainability 0 0 0 0 0 0

3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 1 2 2 0 0

4. Materials 0 1 1 1 1 3

5. Water 0 0 2 4 3 6

6. Biodiversity and land 20 22 11 14 20 13

7. Products and services 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 27 31 27 25 31 28

148

Figure 5.28 Environmental disclosure of Eastern Star Gas (2005-2010)

According to Figure 5.29, for Eastern Star Gas, the level 1 of detail is the dominant

level between the three levels used in this study. For all periods of this study

between 2005 and 2010 most of the environmental information was disclosed in pure

narrative rather than disclosed in a numerical way or numerical way including

qualitative explanation. There is a large gap between level 1 and other two levels of

detail, and this is because Eastern Star Gas tended to disclose some kinds of

environmental information in pure narrative. In Table 5.29, for example, category

1 (general environmental disclosure) in 2005 was classified as following: 7 under

level 1, zero under level 2 and zero under level 3. For all periods of the study the

level 2 of details of disclosure had the smallest amount of disclosed information and

the information under level 1 was higher than the other two levels. An example of

this is category 6 (biodiversity and land) in 2010, which was classified as following: 8

under level 1, 1 under level 2 and 4 under level 3.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Volu

me

years

Environmental disclosures

Environmentaldisclosure

149

Table 5.29: Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Eastern Star Gas

1. General environmental disclosure.

2. Sustainability

3. Environmental pollution and

waste

4. Materials

5. Water

6. Biodiversity

and land

7. Products

and services

8. Other

Total

LDS 2005

1 7 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10

LDS 2006

1 7 0 1 0 0 10 0 0 18 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 12

LDS 2007

1 11 0 2 0 2 7 0 0 22 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3

LDS 2008

1 4 0 2 0 4 8 0 0 18 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5

LDS 2009

1 7 0 0 0 1 10 0 0 18 2 0 0 0 1 0 10 0 0 11 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

LDS 2010

1 6 0 0 0 5 8 0 0 19 2 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 5

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3

Volu

me

level of detail

LDS 2005

LDS 2006

LDS 2007

LDS 2008

LDS 2009

LDS 2010

Figure 5.29 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Eastern Star Gas

150

Regarding the type of information for Eastern Star Gas, the nonfinancial information

is the dominant type of information in all periods of study. As is shown in Figure 5.30,

most of the environmental information disclosed is as nonfinancial information and

there was a great gap between the two types of information. This gap increased in

2006 when the nonfinancial information was 30 and the financial information was 1.

After 2006 this gap started to decline, and this was mainly because there had been

an increase in the financial information and over the same time there had been a

decline in nonfinancial information. For example, as Table 5.30 shows, in 2010 the

disclosed information was classified 9 as financial information and 19 as nonfinancial

information which could be seen as an improvement compared with 2006.

Table 5.30: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Eastern Star Gas

Categories

Type of information

2005

Type of information

2006

Type of information

2007

Type of information

2008

Type of information

2009

Type of information

2010 Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non

1. General environmental disclosure.

0 7 0 7 0 11 0 4 0 7 0 6

2. Sustainability 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3. Environmental pollution and waste

0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0

4. Materials 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 3 0

5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 3 0 6

6. Biodiversity and land 9 11 0 22 5 6 6 8 9 11 6 7

7. Products and services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 9 18 1 30 6 21 7 18 10 21 9 19

151

5.11. Conclusion This chapter contains an empirical evaluation of the investigation of corporate

environmental disclosure of the sample companies using content analysis. The result

of content analysis is classified for each company separately using tables and

charts. In addition, the results are presented in three groups. The first group presents

results related to the volume of corporate environmental disclosure for each

environmental category used in content analysis and in general for the whole

company. The second group classifies the corporate environmental disclosure of the

company into three levels of details: level 1 (disclosure addresses issue in pure

narrative), level 2 (disclosure addresses issue in numerical way) and level 3

(disclosure addresses issue in numerical way including qualitative explanation

(narrative and quantitative). The third group classifies the corporate environmental

disclosure for each company based on the type of disclosed information. Two types

of information are considered financial and nonfinancial information. In every group,

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Volu

me

years

Financial

Non financial

Figure 5.30 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Eastern Star Gas

152

the result is transferred to figures in order to assist the reader to easily track the

changes according to the corporate environmental disclosure of the company over

the time of the study.

Analysing the corporate reports and the investigation of the corporate environmental

disclosure of the selected companies shows that all of the selected Australian oil and

gas companies disclose some environmental information related to their activities

(see Appendix 4). However, there are differences in these disclosures among the

studied companies; some of them disclose a large amount of environmental

information and others provide just a small amount of information. Also there is a

difference regarding what information the companies disclose, which is reflected in

the categories of content analysis such as information related to the regulations and

policies or pollutions. The findings show that the corporate environmental disclosure

trend of the studied companies was fluctuant during the study period between 2005

and 2010. This period of time witnessed an increase and decrease in the trend of

corporate environmental disclosure. What could be seen from the curves of the

environmental disclosure, in general, is that in the most of the studied companies the

quantity of corporate environmental disclosure has improved since 2007, regardless

of the quality. Also, the curves of the environmental disclosure show that sometimes

the year 2007 witnessed the peak of corporate environmental disclosure. For

example, the corporate environmental disclosure of Woodside Petroleum Company

and Aurora Oil and Gas Company reached a peak in 2007. What could be said

about this year is that in 2007 there was a change in the Australian government from

the Liberal/National Party to the Labour party. The Labour Government seem to be

more concerned about the environment and climate change, and this concern is

153

reflected in the introduction of the Australian Government’s proposed carbon price in

2010. This in turn could affect the environmental disclosure of the oil and gas

companies by encouraging them to disclose more information related to their carbon

emissions and improve their reputation and gain legitimacy from the government.

This research did not look at the effects of the change of the Australian government

on environmental disclosure because it is not the focus of this research.

Consistent with previous work, such as that done by Patten (1991), Hackston and

Milne (1996) and Deegan and Gordon (1996), the finding of this study supports that

there is a positive association between the size of the company and the corporate

environmental disclosure. Big companies are more likely to provide more corporate

environmental disclosure than smaller companies. In addition, the findings show that

most of the studied companies provide general environmental information and their

corporate environmental disclosure is classified under two main categories. The first

category is the category of general environmental disclosure, and a considerable

percentage of environmental disclosure is classified in this category, particularly

information related to environmental policies, concerns and any general mention to

the environment or climate change and information related to environmental

regulations. The second category is the category of biodiversity and land, this

category also has a big volume of information, however, a small amount of this

information is related to land reclamation or reforestation. In this category, most of

the information comes under the subcategory of location and size of land owned,

leased and used. It appears in the section of business review in the annual reports,

so this information could be disclosed for other purposes rather than environmental

purposes. This consistent with the view which companies are lees transparent and

154

they use a kind of “spin” (Beck et al. 2010) in order to improve reputation and gain

the legitimacy from the public.

In the largest four companies (Woodside Petroleum, Origin Energy, Santos and Oil

Search), a large amount of their environmental information covers more categories

of content analysis. The largest four companies established Committees of

Sustainability, whose duties include reviewing and making recommendations to the

Board on the company’s policies and performance in relation to health, safety, the

environment and community. All of the companies do publish a stand-alone

sustainability report, so the environment gets great attention and a special space is

provided for environment and sustainability issues. Additional to the category of

general environmental disclosure, a large amount of their environmental disclosure

comes under the categories of sustainability and environmental pollution and waste,

especially after 2007. In the category of sustainability, most of information is

classified under the subcategories of energy consumption and efforts to reduce

energy consumption which reduces costs, and the general mention of sustainability.

In the category of environmental pollution and waste, most of the disclosed

information is related to greenhouse gas emissions and action to reduce the air

emissions. In contrast, the findings also show that the categories of material, and

products and services are considered to be the least reported categories. It is clearly

shown that the studied companies provide a small amount of environmental

information under the categories of material and products and services. Sometimes

the results show that there is no information classified under them. In this sense,

companies do not disclose information related to the sources depletion and

consumption as the main activity is to extract Crude oil and natural gas.

155

Furthermore, this study supports the applicability of legitimacy theory, through

analysing the corporate environmental disclosures of the 10 largest Australian oil

and gas companies. A high percentage of these disclosures were favourable

environmental information (spin) for the companies. For instance, Woodside’s 2006

annual report mentioned that, “for Woodside, sustainability means delivering long-

term economic performance, environmental excellence and social contribution”

(WPL annual report, 2006, p. 24). Woodside considers sustainability as the main key

to drive their activities. “Sustainability principles guide our activities and decisions.

These principles ensure that we deliver outstanding shareholder value, protect the

environment and natural resources on which our business and society depend”

(WPL annual report, 2006, p. 24). It could be seen that companies are aiming to

educate the shareholders to the fact that they care about environment protection and

will keep the environmental impact associated with its activities as small as it can.

Another example is in AWE’s 2010 annual report. “Reducing our environmental

impact and conserving biodiversity with the implementation of leading practice

environmental management systems, technological innovation and improvements is

a key objective – this includes after our operations have ceased” (p. 26). In this

example, through normalising environmental impacts and environmental protection

as a part of the business, the company implies that it will take care of these impacts

like any other important business issues (Laine, 2009). These disclosures are used

as legitimating devices of provide further evidence to the environmental excellence

of the company’s environmental management.

Moreover, investigating the corporate environmental disclosures shows that

companies disclosed information related to their spending on environmental studies.

156

Companies tend to disclose information about their sponsoring or conducting of

environmental research studies and their impacts. An example of these disclosures

is, “the environmental impact study, which sets out the environmental and social

impacts of the project as well as the planned management and mitigation measures,

was finished at the end of 2008 and submitted to Government in January 2009”

(OSH annual report, 2008, p. 26). Another example, is “Santos is also partnering

with the University of Sydney to better understand the effects of drilling on deep-sea

biodiversity, undertake experiments to study the physiological impacts on marine

fauna and determine whether subsea production structures can create reefs”(STO

annual report, 2006, p. 30). This shows that the companies aimed to enhance their

legitimacy in the eyes of the society in which they operate, by emphasising their

environmental investments. According to Beck, (1992) in modern society after 1990,

one way of constructing legitimacy is through expertise. This strategy is used by the

companies studied, through their environmental disclosures, where they mention

universities and experts to gain further legitimacy. For example, Oil Search Limited in

its annual report in 2006 disclosed that, “a study of the biology and ecology,

reproductive capacity and overexploitation of the pig-nosed turtle was completed in

December 2006 by Professor Arthur Georges from the University of Canberra” (p.

59).

The finding also indicates that sample companies tend to disclose most of their

environmental information in pure narrative rather than using a numerical way or

both narrative and quantitative explanation. Furthermore, the findings clearly show

that a high percentage of corporate environmental disclosure is classified as non-

financial information and all studied companies tend to disclose more non-financial

157

environmental information, which in turn means less financial environmental

information has been discussed in the corporate reports.

158

Chapter 6. Conclusion

The previous chapter included the application of interpretative content analysis to the

research data as well as discussion of the results. In this chapter, the results are

discussed in relation to the research motivation and objectives with specific

reference to the research question. This chapter will also include discussion on the

significance and contribution of this study and possible future research directions.

The final section of this chapter will outline some of the limitations of this study.

This study examines and explores the corporate environmental disclosures of

Australian companies in the extractive industry. In addition, this study attempts to

identify the categories used by these companies under which they disclose

environmental information. Interpretative content analysis was applied to analyse the

annual reports and stand-alone sustainability reports of a representative sample

which included the 10 largest Australian Oil and Gas companies, based on the

Market Capitalisation, listed on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX).

The study gains its importance from the increase of public concern about the impacts

of organisations’ activities on the natural environment. Environmental impacts of

business activities have been discussed for over a number of decades particularly in

reference to countries in Europe such as Great Britain, Germany, Netherlands and

Scandinavia, North America, New Zealand and Australia (Dunlap, 1997; Gray et al.

1996; Hildebrand, 1997). This places a pressure on companies and organizations to

take seriously into account their environmental impacts (Unerman et al. 2007).

Therefore, the current research is attempting firstly to examine and explore the

corporate environmental disclosures of Australian companies in the extractive

159

industry sector. Secondly, to identify the categories used by these companies to

disclose environmental information.

6.1. Conclusions about the research question Analysing the corporate reports of the environmental disclosures of the selected

Australian Oil and Gas companies indicated that all of the selected companies

disclose environmental information to some extent. However, there are differences in

the corporate environmental disclosures among the sample companies. The study

indicates that the corporate environmental disclosures of the companies fluctuated or

the amount of the environmental disclosure changed over time during the study

period between 2005 and 2010.

To what extent do Australian oil and gas companies disclose their environmental

impacts (both positive and negative) in annual reports and sustainability reports?

6.1.1. The key focus of the environmental disclosures

There was a difference regarding the type and amount of environmental information

the companies disclose which is reflected in the identified categories of content

analysis such as information related to the regulations and policies or pollutions.

These differences provide indications about the companies’ purpose of the

environmental disclosures and the kind of the external pressure (from government,

media, environmental groups or stakeholders) that the company received. The

findings show that the majority of the studied companies provided general

environmental information classified mainly under the category of General

160

Environmental Disclosure (environmental policies, concerns, accidents and

regulations ), and the category of Biodiversity and Land, these disclosures indicate

that companies disclose such information to compliance with regulations to gain

legitimacy. However, the largest four companies disclosed the environmental

information which covered multiple categories; this indicates that there is a

relationship between the size of the company and the coverage of environmental

disclosures. Some of companies have specific committees of Sustainability and

these companies do publish stand-alone sustainability reports, additionally to the

category of general environmental disclosure, a high percentage of their

environmental disclosure comes under the categories of sustainability and

environmental pollution and waste (emissions and waste), especially after 2007. This

indicates that companies take into account the perceptions of the society and

government about the carbon emissions. In contrast, the findings also show that

environmental disclosure of the companies did not provide in-depth coverage for

some used categories. For example, the categories of material, and products and

services are the least used, there is very little environmental information disclosed

under these categories.

6.1.2. The level of detail and the type of information (financial and non-financial)

The finding indicates that sample companies tend to disclose most of their

environmental information in pure narrative rather than using a numerical or both

narrative and quantitative explanation. Furthermore, the findings clearly show that in

all of the selected companies the non-financial information presents a large amount

of corporate environmental disclosure, which in turn means small amount of financial

161

environmental information has been disclosed in the corporate reports. It could be

that the companies tend to disclose non-financial information more than financial

information. Because companies tend to get legitimacy from particular types of

stakeholders and convey such information and communicate with them who are not

interested in the financial information. Government and environmental lobbies may

be among those who are more interested the damage and the pollution that

companies cause.

6.1.3. The applicability of legitimacy theory Through analysing Annual Reports and stand-alone Sustainability Reports and

examining corporate environmental disclosures of the 10 largest Australian Oil and

Gas companies between 2005 and 2011, a high percentage of these disclosures

were positive or favourable to the companies. This study is consistent with previous

studies which support the applicability of legitimacy theory in relation to explaining

the corporate environmental disclosure made by the selected oil and gas companies.

Sample companies use different strategies to improve their public image. Through

environmental disclosures, companies are keen to enhance their legitimacy by

emphasising their environmental investments; also they try to educate the

community that they are very keen about environment protection. Another way

companies gain legitimacy is by disclosing information related to expenditure on

environmental research studies and their impacts.

6.1.4. The association between the size and the corporate environmental disclosure This study provides support consistent with previous literature for the association

between the size of the company and corporate environmental disclosure. The

162

finding of this study, consistent with previous work such that done by Patten (1991),

Hackston and Milne (1996) and Deegan and Gordon (1996), indicates that there is a

positive relationship between the size of the company and corporate environmental

disclosures—large size companies are more likely to provide a high amount of

corporate environmental disclosure and quickly respond to relevant public

expectations than the smaller companies.

6.2. The contribution of the study to the body of knowledge This thesis, which investigates and explores environmental accounting disclosures of

Australian Oil and Gas companies by analysing and examining corporate reports,

provides an important contribution to the body of knowledge, mainly in two areas;

first, contributing to the previous literature of environmental disclosures and second

contributing to the methodology.

6.2.1. Contribution to the academic literature in the area of environmental disclosure This research focuses on the environmental disclosure of oil and gas companies in

Australia and it examines in particular the environmental disclosure for the period

between 2005 and 2010, as there is no similar research has been done in this time

in the Australian context. Therefore, this research contribute to the body of

knowledge in the area of environmental accounting. More specifically, by examining

in particular the environmental disclosure, this research offers evidence of corporate

environmental disclosure made by Australian Oil and Gas companies and extends

the current literature of environmental disclosure and the extractive industry (oil and

163

gas sector). Also, this study covers a period of time between 2005 and 2010 that has

not witnessed a similar study in the field of environmental disclosures.

6.2.2. Contribution to the methodology According to Beck et al. (2010, p. 218), “A perfect content analysis instrument would

be able to capture the totality of meaning from a narrative and convey this in a coded

numerical form but, in practice, all interrogation methods must accept varying

degrees of imperfection”. In this research, the interpretative content analysis is

applied as the research method, which involves both qualitative and quantitative

interrogations. This combination could provide the research with the benefits of these

two generic approaches. Differing from Back et al. (2010), in this study, content

analysis explored the type of information in relation to financial and non-finanacial

information. This contributes to the current literature of content analysis on

environmental disclosures.

6.3. Limitations of the study As with most academic work, there are a few limitations associated with this

research. In this study the main limitations are related to the sample selected and the

data collection.

6.3.1. Limitations of sample selection In this research, the 10 largest Australian Oil and Gas companies were selected

instead of the whole of the extractive industry. So it is not representive the oil and

gas industry and the research’s finding is limited to the corporate environmental

disclosure of the oil and gas sector. The data was collected from Australian

164

companies in the period between 2005 and 2010, so the research findings will be

limited to the Australian context for that particular time frame.

6.3.2. Limitations of data collection Companies could adopt numerous communication channels such as websites,

newspapers and public announcement and use them in order to make contact with

stakeholders. Such communication channels present an important way to disclose

environmental information. In this research, the source of data was limited to

corporate reports (annual reports and stand-alone sustainability reports), whereas

other communication channels were excluded, which could have been used by

companies to disclose environmental information.

6.4. Future research Despite limitations the insight gained into the corporate environmental disclosures

practice of Australian Oil and Gas companies, this study also highlights and

suggests further areas of research which could be conducted in the future. These

research opportunities are highlighted in the following:

First, a broader study examining the environmental disclosures in all kinds of media

channels and covering the whole extractive industry in Australia.

As society today witnesses an important development in the area of information

technology and media, new channels may be used to contact between society’s

members (individuals, organisations and government). Companies and

organisations could convey and disclose information through other channels such as

newspapers, websites, conferences and other media channels. A study that includes

165

a wide range of these channels could have a great contribution in the area of

environmental disclosure.

Second, a study to determine the influences that changed the Federal Government

from a Liberal Government to a Labour Government, which may have impacted on

environmental disclosure practices.

In the Australian context in 2007 there appeared to be a big movement when the

Federal Government changed from a Liberal Government to a Labour Government.

This change could influence the businesses in term of environmental accountability

and responsibility, so environmental disclosure practice could be affected.

Third, a similar study to examine the influence of Carbon Emissions Pricing

legislation being introducedby the Australian government on environmental

disclosures.

Debate continues over the Carbon Emissions Price which has been established

recently. This Carbon Emissions Price will place pressure on the companies

especially those who produce gas emissions to take into account their emissions and

their impacts on the environment. In result of that, the environmental disclosures of

Australian companies will be influenced.

6.5. Final word The research of environmental accounting and environmental disclosure provides

researchers with endless opportunities and will continue to make an academic

contribution to the body of knowledge. This domain will gain greater importance as

society becomes increasingly concerned about environmental issues and the public

perceptions on addressing these issues.

166

Reference list Abbott, W.F. & Monsen, R.J. (1979), “On the measurement of corporate social

responsibility: self-reported disclosure as a method of measuring corporate

social involvement”, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 22 no. 3, pp. 501-

515.

Adams, C. (2002), “Internal organisational factors influencing corporate, social and

ethical reporting: beyond current theorising”, Auditing, Accounting &

Accountability Journal, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 223-250.

Adnan, S.M., Van Staden, C. & Hay, D. (2011), “Does the Interaction of Culture with

Governance Structure Influence CSR Disclosure?”, in Proceedings of the 2011

Centre for Social and Environmental Accounting Research conference

(CSEAR), Tasmania, Australia, 4-7 December 2011.

Ahmed, N. S. (2004), “Corportate Environmental Disclosure in Libya: Evidence and

Environmental Determinism Theory”, PHD Thises, Napier University, UK.

Ahmed, N. & Mousa, F. (2010), “Corporate Environmental Disclosure in Libya: A

Little Improvement”, World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and

Sustainable Development, vol. 6, no. 1/2, pp. 149 -159.

Alewine, H.C. (2010), “A model for conducting experimental environmental

accounting research”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy

Journal, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 256-291.

Anderson, R.H. (1980), “Attitudes of chartered accountants to social responsibility

disclosure in Australia”, Chartered Accountant in Australia, vol. 10, no. 1, pp.

12-16.

167

Anderson, R.H. & Epstein, M. (1995), “The usefulness of annual reports”, Australian

Accountant, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 25-28.

Andrew, B. H., Gul, F. A., Guthrie, J. E. & Teoh, H. Y. (1989), “Note on corporate

social disclosure practice in developing countries: the case of Malaysia and

Singapore”, British Accounting Review, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 371-376.

Arnold, P. J. (1990), “The state and political theory in corporate social disclosure

research: a response to Guthrie and Parker”, Advances in Public Interest

Accounting, vol. 4, pp. 177-181.

Ashforth, B. & Gibbs, B. (1990), “The double edge of legitimization”, Organization

Science, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 177-194.

ASX 2012, accessed 28/10/2012,

http://www.asx.com.au/asx/research/companyInfo.do?by=asxCode&asxCode=

KAR

Aurora Oil & Gas Limited 2012, accessed 28/10/2012,

http://www.auroraoag.com.au/irm/content/default.aspx

Aurora Oil & Gas 2010, Annual Report 2010, accessed 12/11/2011,

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20101025/pdf/31tc4fx966sv9l.pdf

AWE 2012, accessed 28/10/2012, http://www.awexplore.com/irm/content/home.html

AWE 2009, Annual Report 2009, accessed 12/11/2011,

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20091016/pdf/31lcwv3rjdbgtg.pdf

Barnett, A. H. & James, C. C. (1974), “Accounting for Corporate Social Performance:

A Survey”, Management Accounting, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 23-26.

168

Batley, H. & Tozer, L.E. (1993), “Sustainable development: an accounting

perspective”, Accounting Forum, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 38-61.

Baxi, C. V. & Ray, R. S. (2009), “Corporate Social & Environmental disclosure &

Reporting”, the Indian journal of industrial Relations, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 355-375.

Beattie, V., McInnes, B. & Fearnley, S. (2004), “A methodology for analysing and

evaluating narratives in annual reports: a comprehensive descriptive profile

and metrics for disclosure quality attributes”, Accounting Forum, vol. 28, no. 3,

pp. 205-239.

Bebbington, J & Gray, R. (2001), “Accounting for the environment”, SAGE

Publications, London.

Beck, A.C., Campbell, D. & Shrives, P.J. (2010), “Content analysis in environmental

reporting research: Enrichment and rehearsal of the method in a British–

German context”, British Accounting Review, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 207-222.

Beck, U. (1992), “Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity”, Sage, London.

Belal, A. R. (2000), “Environmental reporting in developing countries: empirical

evidence from Bangladesh”, Eco-Management and Auditing, vol. 7, no. 3, pp.

114-121.

Belkaoui, A. (1976), “The Impact of Disclosure of the Environmental Effects of

Organisational Behavior on the Market”, Financial Management, vol. 5, no. 4,

pp. 26-31.

Belkaoui, A. & Karpik, P. G. (1989), “Determinants of the Corporate Decision to

Disclose Social information", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol.

2, no. 1, pp. 36-51.

169

Beretta, S. & Bozzolan, S. (2004), “A framework for the analysis of firm risk

communication”, The International Journal of Accounting, vol. 39, no. 3, pp.

265- 288.

Berr, P. & Friend, F. (2006), “Environmental accounting: A management tool for

enhancing corporate environmental and economic performance”, Ecological

Economics, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 548-560.

Berthelot, S., Cormier, D. & Magnan, M. (2003), “Environmenta Disclosure

Research: Review and Synthesis”, Journal of Accounting Literature, vol. 22, pp.

1-44.

Bewley, K. & Li, Y. (2000), "Disclosure of environmental information by Canadian

manufacturing companies: A voluntary disclosure perspective", Advances in

Environmental Accounting & Management, vol. 1, pp. 201-226

Bhate, S. (2001), “One world, one environment, one vision: Are we close to

achieving this? An exploratory study of consumer environmental behavior

across three countries”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 169-

184.

Blacconiere, W. G. & Patten, D. M. (1994), “Environmental Disclosures, Regulatory

Costs and Changes in Firm Value”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, vol.

18, no. 3, pp. 357-377.

BOM, Bureau of Meteorology Australia 2012, Accessed 11/1/2012,

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgibin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rain&area=

qld&season=0112&ave_yr=0.

Bowman, E. H. & Haire, M. (1975), “A strategic Posture Toward Corporate Social

Responsibility”, California Management Review, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 49-58.

170

Brown, N. & Deegan, C. (1998), “The public disclosure of environmental

performance information – a dual test of media agenda setting theory and

legitimacy theory”, Accounting and Business Research, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 21-

41.

Buhr, N. (1998). “Environmental performance, legislation and annual report

disclosure: the case of acid rain and Falconbridge”, Accounting, Auditing &

Accountability Journal, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 163–190.

Burchell, S., Clubb, C. & Hopwood, A.G. (1985), “Accounting in its social context:

towards a history of value added in the United Kingdom”, Accounting,

Organizations and Society, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 381-413.

Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. (1979), Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis,

Heinman, London.

Beach Petroleum Limited 2012, accessed 28/10/2012,

http://www.beachenergy.com.au/irm/content/default.aspx

Campbell, D.J. (2003), “Intra- and intersectoral effects in environmental disclosures:

evidence for legitimacy theory?”, Business Strategy and the Environment, vol.

12, no. 6, pp. 357-371.

Campbell, D.J. (2004), “A longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis of environmental

disclosure in UK companies a research note”, British Accounting Review, vol.

36, no. 1, pp. 107-117.

Campbell, D. & Abdul Rahman, M. R. (2010), “A longitudinal examination of

intellectual capital reporting in Marks & Spencer annual reports, 1978–2008”,

The British Accounting Review, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 56-70.

171

Cho, H., Chen. J. & Roberts, R. (2008), “The politics of environmental disclosure

regulation in the chemical and petroleum industries: Evidence from the

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986”, Critical

Perspectives on Accounting, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 450-465.

Choi, J. S. (1999), “An investigation of the initial voluntary environmental disclosures

made in Korean semi-annual financial reports”, Pacific Accounting Review, vol.

11, no. 1, pp. 73-102.

Chua, W.F. (1986), "Radical Developments in Accounting Thought", the Accounting

Review, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 601-632.

Chungh, L. & Meador, J. (1984), “The stock valuation process: The analysts view”,

Financial Analysts Journal, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 41–48.

Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y. & Richardson, G. D. (2004), “The market valuation of

environmental capital expenditures by pulp and paper companies”, The

Accounting Review, vol. 79, no. 2, pp. 329-354.

Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D. & Vasvari, F. P. (2008), “Revisiting the

relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An

empirical analysis”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 33, no. 4/5, pp.

303-327.

Clarkson, P. M., Overell, M. B. & Chapple, L. (2011), “Environmental Reporting and

its Relation to Corporate Environmental Performance”, ABACUS, vol. 47, no. 1,

pp. 27-60.

Collins, D. W. & Dent, W. T. (1979), “The proposed elimination of full cost accounting

in the extractive petroleum industry: An Empirical Assessment of the Market

Consequences”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, vol. 1, pp. 3-44.

172

Cormier, D. & Gordon, I. M. (2001), “An examination of social and environmental

reporting strategies”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 14, no.

5, pp. 587-616.

Cormier, D. & Magnan, M. (2001), “Corporate Environmental Reporting: An

International Comparison”, Working Paper (UQAM).

Cormier, D. & Magnan, M. (2003), “Environmental Reporting Management: A

Continental European Perspective”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,

vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 43-62.

Cormier, D., Magnan, M. & Van Velthoven, B. (2005), “Environmental Disclosure

Quality in Large German Companies: Economic Incentives, Public Pressures or

Institutional Conditions?”, European Accounting Review, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 3-

39.

Cortese, C.L. (2006), “The power of the extractive industries: capturing the

international accounting standard setting process”, PhD thesis, School of

Accounting and Finance, University of Wollongong.

Cortese, C. L., Irvine, H. J. & Kaidonis, M. (2009), “Extractive industries accounting

and economic consequences: past, present and future”, Accounting Forum, vol.

33, no. 1, pp. 27-37.

Corrigan, J. (1998),” Assessing costs and benefits--what role to play?”, Australian

CPA, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 24-26.

Cowan, S. & Gadenne, D. (2005), “Australian Corporate Environmental Reporting: A

Comparative Analysis of Disclosure Practices Across Voluntary and Mandatory

Disclosure Systems”, Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, vol. 1,

no. 2, pp. 165-179.

173

Cyert, R. M. & March, J. G. (1963), “A Behavioral Theory of the Firm”, Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Dacin, M. T. & Martinez, R. J. (1999), “Efficiency motives and normative forces:

combining transactions costs and institutional logic”, Journal of Management,

vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 75-96.

Dasgupta, S., Hong, J. H., Laplante, B. & Mamingi, N. (2006), “Disclosure of

environmental violations and stock market in the Republic of Korea”, Ecological

Economics, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 759-777

Deegan, C. (2000), “Financial Accounting Theory”, McGraw-Hill Book Company,

Australia.

Deegan, C. (2002), “Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and

Environmental disclosures - a theoretical foundation”, Accounting, Auditing &

Accountability Journal, Vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 282 – 311.

Deegan, C. (2009), “Financial Accounting Theory”, 3th edition, McGraw-Hill Book

Company, Australia.

Deegan, C., Geddes, S. & Staunton, J. (1995), “A survey of Australian accountants’

attitudes on environmental reporting”, Accounting Forum, vol. 19 no. 2/3, pp.

143-163.

Deegan, C. & Gordon, B. (1996), “A study of the environmental disclosure policies of

Australian corporations”, Accounting and Business Research, vol. 26, no. 3, pp.

187-199.

Deegan, C. & Rankin, M. (1996), “Do Australian companies report environmental

news objectively?: An analysis of environmental disclosures by firms

prosecuted successfully by the Environmental Protection Authority”,

Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 50-67.

174

Deegan, C., Rankin, M. & Tobin, J. (2002), “An examination of the corporate social

and environmental disclosures of BHP from 1983-1997: A test of legitimacy

theory”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 312-

343.

Deloitte, S.T. & Van Staden, C. (2011), “Motivations for Corporate Social and

Environmental Reporting: New Zealand Evidence”, in Proceedings of the 2011

Centre for Social and Environmental Accounting Research conference

(CSEAR), Tasmania, Australia, 4-7 December 2011.

Dillard, J.F (1991), “Accounting as a Critical Social Science”, Accounting, Auditing

and Accountability Journal, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 8-28.

Dilley, S. C. & Weygandt, J. J. (1973), “Measuring Social Responsibility: An

Empirical Test”, The Journal of Accountancy, vol. 136, no. 3, pp. 62-70.

DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W. (1983), “The iron cage revisited: institutional

isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields”, American

Sociological Review, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 147-160.

Disu, A. & Gray, R. H. (1998), “An exploration of social reporting and MNCs in

Nigeria”, Social and Environmental Accounting, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 13-15.

Donaldson, T. & Preston, L. (1995), “The stakeholder theory of corporation –

concepts, evidence, and implications”, Academy of Management Review, vol.

20, no. 1, pp. 65-92.

Dowling, J. & Pfeffer, J. (1975), “Organisational Legitimacy: social values and

organisational behaviour”, Pacific Sociological Review, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 122-

136.

175

Dunlap, R.E. (1997), “Trends in public opinion toward environmental issues 1965-

1990”, in P. McDonagh & A. Prothero (eds) Green management a reader, The

Dryden Press, London.

Duriau, V.K., Reger, R.K. & Pfarrer M, D. (2007), “A Content Analysis of the Content

Analysis Literature in Organization Studies: Research Themes, Data Sources,

and Methodological Refinements”, Organizational Research Methods, vol. 10,

no. 1, pp. 5-34.

Eastern Star Gas 2011, accessed 16/4/2012, http://www.easternstar.com.au/

Eastern Star Gas 2005, Annual Report 2005, accessed 12/11/2011,

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20051013/pdf/3sr9q683nfyr6.pdf

Edino, M. O., Nsofor, G. N. & Bombom, L. S. (2010), “Perceptions and attitudes

towards gas flaring in the Niger Delta, Nigeria”, The Environmentalist, vol. 30,

pp. 67-75.

Elijido-Ten, E. (2007), “Applying stakeholder theory to analyze corporate

environmental performance: Evidence from Australian listed companies”, Asian

Review of Accounting, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 164-184.

Elijido-Ten, E. (2008), “The Case for Reporting Pro-Active Environmental Initiatives:

A Malaysian Experiment on Stakeholder Influence Strategies”, Issues in Social

and Environmental Accounting, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 36-60.

Elijido-Ten, E. (2009), “can stakeholder theory add to our understanding of

Malaysian Environmental reporting attitudes?”, Malaysian Accounting Review,

vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 85-110.

Elijido-Ten, E., Kloot, L. & Clarkson, P. (2010), “Extending the application of

stakeholder influence strategies to environmental disclosures: An exploratory

176

study from a developing country”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability

Journal, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 1032-1059.

Everett, J. (2004), “Exploring (false) dualisms for environmental accounting praxis”,

Critical Perspectives on Accounting, vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 1061-1084.

Ernst, & Ernst (later Ernst & Whinney) (1972–1978), Social responsibility disclosure:

Survey of fortune 500 annual reports, Cleveland, OH: Ernst & Ernst.

Fekrat, M. A., Inclan, C. & Petroni, D. (1996), “Corporate Environmental Disclosures:

Competitive Disclosure Hypothesis Using 1991 Annual Report Data”, The

International Journal of Accounting, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 175-195.

Firoz, C.A.M. & Ansari, A.A. (2010), “Environmental Accounting and International

Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS)”, International Journal of Business and

Management, vol. 5, no. 10, pp. 105-112.

Flory, S. M. & Grossman, S. D. (1978), “New oil and gas accounting requirements”,

The CPA Journal, vol. 48, pp. 39-43.

Freedman, M. & Wasley, C. (1990), “The Association Between Environmental

Performance and Environmental Disclosure in Annual Reports and 10Ks”,

Advances in Public Interest Accounting, vol. 3, pp. 183-193.

Frost, G. R. (1999), “Environmental Reporting: An Analysis of Company Annual

Reports of the Australian Extractive Industries 1985-1994”, Unpublished PHD,

The University of New England.

Frost, G. R. (2007), “the Introduction of Mandatory Environmental Reporting

Guidelines: Australian Evidence”, ABACUS, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 190-216.

177

Frost, G. R & Wilmshurst, T. D. (2000), “The Adoption of Environment-related

management accounting: an analysis of corporate environmental sensitivity”,

Accounting Forum, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 344-365.

Geno, B.J. (1995), “Accounting for sustainability: an exploration of accounting needs

in the ecologically rational society”, Accounting Forum, vol. 19, no. 2/3, pp. 176-

194.

Gibson, R. & Guthrie, J. E. (1995), “Recent environmental disclosures in annual

reports of Australian public and private sector organisations”, Accounting

Forum, vol. 19, no. 2/3, pp. 111-127.

Gray, R. (1992)," Accounting and environmentalism: an exploration of the challenge

of gently accounting for accountability, transparency and sustainability”,

Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 399-425.

Gray, R. H. (1993), “Current practice in environmental reporting”, Social and

Environmental Accounting, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 6-9.

Gray, R. & Bebbington, J. (2001), "Accounting for the environment", SAGE

publications, 2nd Edition London.

Gray, R.H. & Collison, D. (1991), “The environmental audit: green-gauge or

whitewash”, Managerial Auditing Journal, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 17-25.

Gray, S.J., Meek, G.K. and Roberts, C.B. (1995a), “International capital market

pressures and voluntary annual report disclosures by US and UK

multinationals”, Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting,

vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 43-68.

Gray, R., Kouhy, R. & Lavers, S. (1995b), “Methodological themes: Constructing a

research database of social and environmental reporting by UK companies”,

Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 7-101.

178

Gray, R., Owen, D. & Adams, C, (1996), "Accounting & accountability: changes and

challenges in corporate social and environmental reporting", Prentice Hall,

London.

Gray, R., Owen, D. & Maunders, K. (1987), “Corporate Social Reporting: Accounting

and Accountability”, Prentice Hall, London.

Grojer, J. E. & Stark, A. (1977), “Social Accounting: A Swedish attempt”, Accounting,

Organizations and Society, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 349-386.

Guthrie, J. & Abeysekera, I. (2006), “Content analysis of social, environmental

reporting: what is new?”, Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting,

vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 114-126.

Guthrie, J. & Farneti, F. (2008), “GRI Sustainability Reporting by Australian Public

Sector Organizations”, Public Money & Management, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 361-

366.

Guthrie, J. E. & Mathews, M. R. (1985), “Corporate social accounting in Australia”,

Corporate Social Performance and Policy, vol. 7, pp. 251-277.

Guthrie, J. & Parker, L. (1989), “Corporate Social Reporting: A Rebuttal of

Legitimacy Theory”, Accounting and Business Research, vol. 9, no. 76, pp.

343-352.

Hackston, D. & Milne, M. J. (1996), “Some determinants of social and environmental

disclosure in New Zealand companies”, Accounting, Auditing &

Accountability Journal, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 77-108.

Hall, N. L. & Taplin, R. (2007), “Revolution or inch-by-inch? Campaign approaches

on climate change by environmental groups”, Environmentalist, vol. 27, pp. 95-

107

179

Harte, G. & Owen, D. (1991), “Environmental disclosure in the annual reports of

British companies: a research note”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability

Journal, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 51-61.

Harwood, T.G. & Garry, T. (2003), “An Overview of Content Analysis”, The Marketing

Review, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 479-498.

Hasnas, J. (1998), “The normative theories of business ethics: a guide for the

perplexed”, Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 19-42.

Hegde, P., Bloom, R. & Fuglister, J. (1997), “Social financial reporting in India: A

case”, The international Journal of Accounting, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 155-172.

Heard, J. & Bolce, W. (1981), “The political significance of corporate social reporting

in the United States of America”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol.

6, no. 3, pp. 247-254.

Hildebrand, P.M. (1997), The European Community’s environmental policy, 1957 to

‘1992’: from incidental measures to an international regime?, in P. McDonagh &

A. Prothero (eds) Green management a reader, The Dryden Press, London.

Hogner, R.H. (1982), “Corporate social reporting: eight decades of development at

U.S. Steel”, Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, vol. 4, pp.

243-250.

Hughes, S. B., Sander, J. F. & Reier, J.C. (2000), “Do environmental disclosures in

U.S. annual reports differ by environmental performance?”, Advances in

Environmental Accounting & Management, vol. 1, pp. 141-161.

Ingram, R. W. & Frazier, K. B. (1980), “Environmental performance and corporate

disclosure”, Journal of Accounting Research, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 614- 621.

180

Jones, T.M. (1995), “Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and

economics”, Academic of Management Review, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 404-437.

Karoon Gas Australia 2007, Annual Report 2007, accessed 12/11/2011,

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20070926/pdf/314r9l78q4rp9q.pdf

Kaur, A. & Lodhia, S.K. (2011), “The state of disclosures on stakeholder engagement

in sustainability reporting in Australian local councils”, in Proceedings of the

2011 Centre for Social and Environmental Accounting Research conference

(CSEAR), Tasmania, Australia, 4-7 December 2011.

Kent, P. & Chan, C. (2003), “Application of Stakeholder Theory to the Quantity and

Quality of Australian Voluntary Corporate Environmental Disclosures”, Working

Paper, available at

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=447901, accessed

13/10/2011.

Kisenyi, V. & Gray, R. H. (1998), “Social disclosure in Uganda”, Social and

Environmental Accounting, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 16-18.

Kolk, A. (2003), “Trends in sustainability reporting by the Fortune Global 250”,

Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 279-291.

Krippendorff, K. (2004), “Content Analysis; an Introduction to its Methodology”, 2nd

Edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, London.

Laine, M (2009), “Ensuring legitimacy through rhetorical changes?: A longitudinal

interpretation of the environmental disclosures of a leading Finnish chemical

company”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 22, no. 7, pp.

1029-1054.

181

Lamberton, G. (2005), “Sustainability accounting-a brief history and conceptual

framework”, Accounting Forum, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 7-26.

Lee, T. (2005), “Environmental issues and managerial accounting: the IFAC

exposure draft”, Petroleum Accounting and Financial Management Journal, vol.

24, no. 1, pp. 1-22.

Lee, T. (2007), “Research in internal control in the extractive industries: Corporate

goveronance and risk management”, Petroleum Accounting and Financial

Management Journal, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 27-54.

Lev, B. & Zarowin, P. (1999), “The boundaries of financial reporting and how to

extend them”, Journal of Accounting Research, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 353-385.

Levy, D. L. & Kolk, A. (2002), “Strategic Responses to Global Climate Change:

Conflicting Pressures on Multinationals in Oil Industry”, Business and Politics,

vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 275-300.

Lindblom, C. K. (1994), “The implications of organizational legitimacy for corporate

social performance and disclosure”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting

conference, New York.

Liu, X. & Anbumozhi, V. (2009), “Determinant factors of corporate environmental

information disclosure: an empirical study of Chinese listed companies”,

Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 593-600.

Lodhia, S. (2003), “Accountants' responses to the environmental agenda in a

developing nation: an initial and exploratory study on Fiji”, Critical Perspectives

on Accounting, vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 715-737.

182

Logsdon, J.M. (1985), “Organisational responses to environmental issues: oil refining

companies and air pollution”, in Preston, L.E. (Ed.), Research in Corporate

Social Performance and Policy, vol.7, JAI Press, New York, NY, pp. 47-72.

Luther, R. (1996), “The Development of Accounting Regulation in the Extractive

Industries: An International Review”, The International Journal of Accounting,

vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 67-93.

Magness, V. (2002), “The Value Relevance of Environmental Disclosures – an Event

Study in the Canadian Mining Industry”, Working Paper, Ryerson University.

Mathews, M. R. (1984), “A suggested classification for social accounting research”,

Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 199-221.

Mathews, M. R. (1993), “Socially Responsible Accounting”, Chapman & Hall,

London.

Mathews, M. R. (1994), “Recent developments in social and environmental

accounting”, Accounting Forum, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 5-22.

Mathews, M. R. (1997), “Twenty-five years of social and environmental accounting

research”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 10, no. 4, pp.

481-531.

Maunders, K.T. & Burritt, R.L. (1991)," Accounting and ecological crisis", Accounting

Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 9-26.

McCloskey, J. & Smith, D. (1997), Strategic management and business policy-

making: bringing in environmental values, in P. McDonagh & A. Prothero (eds)

Green management a reader, The Dryden Press, London.

Meek, G. K., Roberts, C. B., & Gray S. J. (1995), “Factors Influencing Voluntary

Annual Report Disclosures by U.S., U.K., and Continental European

183

Multinational Corporations”, Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 26,

no. 3, pp. 555-572.

Milne, M. J. & Adler, R. W. (1999), “Exploring the reliability of social and

environmental disclosures content analysis”, Accounting, Auditing &

Accountability Journal, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 237-256.

Milne, M. J., Tregidga, H. & Walton, S. (2003). The triple bottom line: benchmarking

New Zealand’s early reporters. University of Auckland Business Review, vol. 5,

no. 2, pp.1-14.

Milne, M.J. & Gray, R. (2007), “Future prospects for corporate sustainability

reporting”, Sustainability Accounting and Accountability, vol. 1, pp. 184-207.

Milne, M. J. & Patten, D. M. (2002),"Securing organizational legitimacy: An

experimental decision case examining the impact of environmental

disclosures", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 15, no. 3, pp.

372-405.

Mobley, S. C. (1970), “The Challenges of Socio-Economic Accounting”, the

Accounting Review, vol. 45. No. 4, pp. 762-768.

Morgan, G. (1988), "Accounting as reality construction: towards a new epistemology

for accounting practice", Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol.13, no. 5,

pp. 477- 485.

Murdoch, B. & Krause, P. (2009), “An investigation of the earnings quality of the

successful efforts and full costing methods”, Petroleum Accounting and

Financial Management Journal, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 99-112.

Murray, A., Sinclair, D., Power, D. & Gray, R. (2006),"Do financial markets care

about social and environmental disclosure?: Further evidence and exploration

184

from the UK", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 19, no. 2, pp.

228-255.

Ness, K. & Mirza, A. (1991), “Corporate social disclosure: a note on a test of agency

theory”, British Accounting Review, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 211-217.

Neu, D., Warsame, H. & Pedwell, K. (1998), “Managing public impressions:

environmental disclosures in annual reports”, Accounting, Organizations and

Society, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 265-282.

Neuman, W. (2011), Social Research Science Qualitative and Quantitative

Approaches, Pearson Education Inc, 7th edition, Boston, USA.

O’Connor, L. (2006), “Empirical Research in Social and Environmental Accounting: A

Meta-review”, Working paper, La Trobe Universirty.

O’Donovan, G. (2002), “Environmental disclosures in the annual report: extending

the applicability and predictive power of legitimacy theory”, Accounting, Auditing

& Accountability Journal, vol, 15, no. 3, pp. 344-371.

Ogri, O. R. (2001), “a review of the Nigerian petroleum industry and the associated

environmental problems”, The Environmentalist, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 11-12.

Oil Search 2010, Annual Report 2009, accessed 12/11/2011,

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20100322/pdf/31pd2y9rk259hr.pdf

Oil Search 2011, Sustainability Report 2010, accessed 12/11/2011,

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20110408/pdf/41xy5m40h51j0w.pdf

O’Leary, T. (1985), “Observations on corporate financial reporting in the name of

politics”, Accounting Organizations and Society, vol. 10, no.1, pp. 87-102.

Oliver, C. (1991), “Strategic responses to institutional processes”, Academy of

Management Review, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 145-179.

185

Origin Energy Limited 2012, accessed 28/10/2012,

http://www.originenergy.com.au/7/At-home

Origin Energy 2008, Annual Report 2008, accessed 12/11/2011,

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20080912/pdf/31c8ry8bfmkkyk.pdf

Origin Energy 2010, Annual Report 2010, accessed 12/11/2011,

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20100927/pdf/31sr3fy8kc8gyg.pdf

Origin Energy 2006, Sustainability Report 2005, accessed 12/11/2011,

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20060530/pdf/3wyqw290c36l5.pdf

Origin Energy 2008, Sustainability Report 2008, accessed 12/11/2011,

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20081231/pdf/31ff1l050dfp1j.pdf

Origin Energy 2010, Sustainability Report 2009, accessed 12/11/2011,

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20100409/pdf/31ppxwd85m8nwp.pdf

Oil Search Limited 2012, accessed 28/10/2012, http://www.oilsearch.com/

Otuya, B. O., Akporohnor, E. E. & Achuba, F. I. (2008), “Determination of heavy

metals in toads exposed to oil polluted environment (Ekpan) Delta State,

Nigeria”, The Environmentalist, vol. 81, no. 4, pp. 405-408.

Owen, D. (2008), “Chronicles of wasted time? A personal reflection on the current

state of, and future prospects for, social and environmental accounting

research”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 21, no. 2, pp.

240-267.

Parker, L. (2000a), “Green strategy costing: early days”, Australian Accounting

Review, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 46-55.

Parker, L. (2000b), “Environmental costing: a path to implementation”, Australian

Accounting Review, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 43-51.

186

Parker, L. (2005), “Social and environmental accountability research: a view from the

commentary box”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 18 no. 6,

pp. 842-860.

Patten, D.M. (1991), “Exposure, legitimacy and social disclosure”, Journal of

Accounting and Public Policy, vol.10, no. 4, pp. 297-308.

Patten, D.M. (1992), “Intra-industry environmental disclosures in response to the

Alaskan oil spill: A note on legitimacy theory”, Accounting, Organizations and

Society, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 471-475.

Patten, D. M. (2000), “Changing superfund disclosure and its relation to the provision

of othe environmental information”, Advances in Environmental Accounting &

Management, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 101-121.

Patten, D.M. & Crampton, W. (2004), “Legitimacy and the internet: an examination of

corporate webpage environmental disclosure”, Advances in Environmental

Accounting and Management, vol. 2, pp. 31–57.

Perrow, C. (1970), “Organizational analysis: A Sociological View”, Tavistock

Publications, London.

Pratt, K. (1990), “Accounting for the Value of Oil and Gas Reserves”, Financial

Management, vol. 68, no. 9, pp. 18-21.

Prothero, A. & McDonagh, P. (1992), “Producing Environmentally Acceptable

Cosmetics? The Impact of Environmentalism on the United Kingdom Cosmetics

and Toiletries Industry”, Journal of Marketing Management, vol. 8, no. 2, p.

147-166.

187

Qian, W. & Burritt, R. (2007), “Environmental accounting for waste management: A

study of local governments in Australia”, Environmentalist, vol. 27, no. 1, pp.

143-154.

Rahahleh, M.Y. (2011), “Means for Implementation of Environmental Accounting

Jordanian Perspectives”, International Journal of Business and Management,

vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 124-135.

Ramanathan, K. V. (1976), “Toward a theory of corporate social accounting”, The

Accounting Review, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 516-528.

Rattanaphaphtham, K. & Kunsrison, R. (2011), “Environmental information

disclosure quality, competitive advantage and sustainable growth of Thai listed

firm: perspective of resource based view”, Journal of International business and

Economics, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 134-146.

Richardson, A. J. & Welker, M. (2001), “Social Disclosure, Financial Disclosure and

the Cost of Equity Capital”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 26, no.

7/8, pp. 597-616.

Ribeiro, V. P. & Aibar-Guzman, C. (2010), “Determinants of environmental

accounting practices in local entities: evidence from Portugal”, Social

Responsibility Journal, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 404-419.

Robb, S. W. G., Single, L. E. & Zarzeski, M. T. (2001), “Nonfinancial disclosures

across Anglo-American countries”, Journal of International Accounting, vol. 10,

no. 2, pp. 71- 83.

Roberts, C.B. (1991), “Environmental disclosures: a note on reporting practices in

mainland Europe”, Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 4, no. 3,

pp. 62-71.

188

Roberts, C.B. (1992), “Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: an

application of stakeholder theory”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol.

17, no. 6, pp. 595-612.

Rockness, J. W. (1985), “An Assessment of the Relationship Between US Corporate

Environmental Performance and Disclosure”, Journal of Business Finance &

Accounting, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 339-354.

Rogers, G. & Kristof, J. (2003), “Reducing Operational and Product Costs through

Environmental Accounting”, Environmental Quality Management, vol. 12, no. 3,

pp. 17-42.

Rousseau, J. J. (1975), “The social contract”, reprinted in Seidler, L. J. And Seidler,

L. L. (Eds), Social Accounting: Theory, Issues and Cases, Melville Publishing,

Los Angeles CA, pp. 43-49.

Russell, A. & Jenkins, L. (2010), “Reflections on the attempt to set a comprehensive

international accounting standard for the oil and gas industry”, Petroleum

Accounting and Financial Management Journal, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 16-29.

Santos Limited 2012, accessed 28/10/2012, http://www.santos.com/

Santos 2007, Annual Report 2006, accessed 12/11/2011,

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20070329/pdf/311pfzn7j9c52y.pdf

Santos 2007, Sustainability Report 2006, accessed 12/11/2011,

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20070329/pdf/311pg82c1dqwp1.pdf `

Savage, A., Rowlands, J. & Cataldo, A. J. (1999), “Environmental disclosure in

annual reports: a legitimacy theory framework”, unpublished paper, Oaklan

University.

Schreier, M. 2012, Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice, Sage Publications.

189

Sethi, S. P. (1978), “Advocacy advertising – the American experience”, California

Management Review, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 55-67.

Shane, P. B. & Spicer, B. H. (1983), “Market response to environmental information

produced outside the firm”, The Accounting Review, vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 521-

538.

Singh, D. R. & Ahuja, J. M. (1983), “Corporate social reporting in India”, The

International Journal of Accounting, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 151-169.

Simintiras, A.C., Schlegelmilch, B.B. & Diamantopoulos, A. (1997), ‘Greening’ the

marketing mix: a review of the literature and an agenda for future research, in

P. McDonagh & A. Prothero (eds) Green management a reader, The Dryden

Press, London.

Soh, Y. C., Roddick, F. & van Leeuwen, J. (2008), “The future of water in Australia:

The potential effects of climate change and ozone depletion on Australian water

quality, quantity and treatability”, Environmentalist, vol. 28, pp. 158-165.

Spence, C. (2007), “Social and environmental reporting and hegemonic discourse”,

Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 855-882.

Stanko, B.B., Brogan, E., Alexander, E. & Chay, C. ( 2006), “Environmental

Accounting”, Business & Economic Review, vol. 52, no.3 , pp. 21-27.

Steadman, M.E., Green, R.F. & Zimmerer, T.W. (1995), “Advising your clients about

environmental accounting issues”, Managerial Auditing Journal, vol. 10, no. 8,

pp. 52-55.

Stone, D. (1995), “No longer at the end of the pipe, but still a long way from

sustainability: a look at management accounting for the environment and

190

sustainable development in the United States”, Accounting Forum, vol. 19, no.

2/3, pp. 95-110.

Swift, T. (2001), “Trust, reputation and corporate accountability to stakeholders”,

Business Ethics: A European Review, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 16-26.

Teoh, H. Y. & Thong, G. (1984), “Another look at corporate social responsibility and

reporting: an empirical study in a developing country”, Accounting,

Organizations and Society, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 189-206.

Tilt, C. A. (1997), “Environmental Policies of Major Australian Companies: Australian

Evidence”, British Accounting Review, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 367-394.

Tilt, C. A. (2001),"The content and disclosure of Australian corporate environmental

policies", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 190-

212.

Tilt, C. A. & Symes, C. F. (1999), “Environmental Disclosure by Australian Mining

Companies: Environmental Conscience or Commercial Reality?”, Accounting

Forum, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 137-154.

Tinker, A., Merino, B. & Neimark, M. (1982), “The Normative Origins of Positive

Theories: Ideology and Accounting Thought”, Accounting, Organizations and

Society, vol.7, no. 2, pp. 167-200.

Tinker, A. & Neimark, M. (1987), “The role of annual reports in gender and class

contradictions at General Motoral: 1917-1976”, Accounting, Organizations and

Society, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 71-88.

Toms, J.S. (2002), “Firm resources, quality signals and the determinants of

corporate environmental reputation: some UK evidence”, British Accounting

Review, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 257-282.

191

Tozer, L. E. & Mathews, M. R. (1994), “Environmental auditing: current practice in

New Zealand”, Accounting Forum, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 47-69.

Trotman, K. T. (1979), “Social Responsibility Disclosures by Australian Companies”,

the Chartered Accountant in Australia, March, pp. 24-28.

Trotman, K.T. & Bradley, G.W. (1981), “Associations between social responsibility

disclosure and characteristics of companies”, Accounting, Organizations and

Society, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 355-362.

Tsang, E. W. K. (1998), “A longitudinal study of corporate social reporting in

Singapore: the case of the banking, food and beverages and hotel industries”,

Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 624-635.

Ullmann, A. E. (1985), “Data in search of a theory: a critical examination of the

relationships among social performance, social disclosure and economic

performance of US firms”, Academy of Management Review, vol. 10, no. 3, pp.

540-557.

Unerman, J., Bebbington, J. & O'Dwyer, B, (2007), Sustainability accounting and

accountability, Routledge, London.

Walden, W. D. & Schwartz, B. N. (1997), “Environmental Disclosures and Public

Policy Pressure”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, vol. 16, no. 2, pp.

125-154.

Wilmshurst, T.D. & Frost, G.R. (2000), “Corporate environmental reporting. A test of

legitimacy theory”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 13, no. 1,

pp. 10-26.

192

Wise, T. & Spear, N. (2000), “Accounting for extractive industries: An Australian

perspective”, Petroleum Accounting and Financial Management Journal, vol.

19, no. 1, pp. 30-53.

Wiseman, J.W. (1982), “An evaluation of environmental disclosures made in

corporate annual reports”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 7, no. 1,

pp. 53-63.

Woodside Petroleum Limited 2012, accessed 28/10/2012,

http://www.woodside.com.au/Pages/default.aspx

Woodside Petroleum 2007, Annual Report 2006, accessed 12/11/2011,

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20070222/pdf/311319w06c3p2s.pdf

Woodside Petroleum 2008, Annual Report 2007, accessed 12/11/2011,

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20080220/pdf/317jvxpwj5g0ck.pdf

Woodside Petroleum 2008, Sustainable development Report 2010, accessed

12/11/2011, http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20110222/pdf/41wy2zvwvss35n.pdf

Wolfensohn, J.D. & Marshall, E. (1994), “Oil and Gas in Australia”, Financial

Analysts Journal, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 151-158.

Worleyparsons Limited 2012, accessed 28/10/2012,

http://www.worleyparsons.com/Pages/Default.aspx

Worleyparsons 2010, Annual Report 2010, accessed 12/11/2011,

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20100831/pdf/31s7kt24ckj6p5.pdf

Wright, C. J. (1998), “Environmental accounting in the oil and gas industry”,

Petroleum Accounting and Financial Management Journal, vol. 17, no. 2, pp.

30-49.

193

Yakhou, M. & Dorweiler, V.P. (2004), “Environmental accounting: an essential

component of business strategy”, Business Strategy and the Environment, vol.

13, no. 2, p. 65-77.

Zachry, B., Gaharan. C. & Chaisson, M. (1998), “A critical analysis of environmental

costing”, American Business Review, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 71-73.

Zeghal, D. & Ahmed, S. A. (1990), “Comparison of social responsibility information

disclosure media used by Canadian firms”, Accounting, Auditing &

Accountability Journal, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 38-53.

194

Appendixes Appendix 1: Environmental Performance Indicators of Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (GRI) Aspect: Materials

EN1: Materials used by weight or volume.

EN2: Percentage of materials used that are recycled input materials.

Aspect: Energy.

EN3: Direct energy consumption by primary energy source.

EN4: Indirect energy consumption by primary source.

EN5: Energy saved due to conservation and efficiency improvements.

EN6: Initiatives to provide energy-efficient or renewable energy-based products and

services, and reductions in energy requirements as a result of these initiatives.

EN7: Initiatives to reduce indirect energy consumption and reductions achieved.

Aspect: Water

EN8: Total water withdrawal by source.dd

EN9: Water sources significantly affected by withdrawal of water.

EN10: Percentage and total volume of water recycled and reused.

Aspect: Biodiversity

EN11: Location and size of land owned, leased, managed in, or adjacent to,

protected areas and areas of high biodiversity value outside protected areas.

Core

195

EN12: Description of significant impacts of activities, products, and services on

biodiversity in protected areas and areas of high biodiversity value outside

protected areas.dd

EN13: Habitats protected or restored.

EN14: Strategies, current actions, and future plans for managing impacts on

biodiversity.

EN15: Number of IUCN Red List species and national conservation list species with

habitats in areas affected by operations, by level of extinction risk.

Aspect: Emissions, Effluents, and Waste

EN16 Total direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions by weight.

EN17: Other relevant indirect greenhouse gas emissions by weight.

EN18: Initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reductions achieved.

EN19: Emissions of ozone-depleting substances by weight.

EN20: NOx, SOx, and other significant air emissions by type and weight.

EN21: Total water discharge by quality and destination.

EN22: Total weight of waste by type and disposal method.

EN23: Total number and volume of significant spills.

EN24: Weight of transported, imported, exported, or treated waste deemed

hazardous under the terms of the Basel Convention Annex I, II, III, and VIII, and

percentage of transported waste shipped internationally.

EN25: Identity, size, protected status, and biodiversity value of water bodies and

related habitats significantly affected by the reporting organization’s discharges

of water and runoff.

196

Aspect: Products and Services

EN26: Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products and services, and

extent of impact mitigation.

EN27: Percentage of products sold and their packaging materials that are reclaimed

by category.

Aspect: Compliance

EN28: Monetary value of significant fines and total number of non-monetary

sanctions for noncompliance with environmental laws and regulations.

Aspect: Transport

EN29: Significant environmental impacts of transporting products and other goods

and materials used for the organization’s operations, and transporting members

of the workforce.

Aspect: Overall

EN30: Total environmental protection expenditures and investments by type.

197

Appendix 2: content analysis categories used by beck et al. (2010) Category Definition Sub-Categories GEN General Environmental related

disclosures: any mention dealing with environmental policy and concern for the environment

1. Any general mention 2. Aims 3. Management system and processes 4. (Disclosure) guidelines such as the ACCA guidelines adopted 5. Initiatives (e.g. Responsible care) 6. Results e.g. Awards won, Results resulting from the Policy 7. Long-term - any mention of long-term policy

RES Who is responsible for the implementation and the environmental behaviour?

1. Top-management - top management or board a. Committee/audit - any committee or group b. Membership c. Aims and objectives 2. Results 3. Anybody working with the organisation e.g. reference to each employee.

POLL Pollution related disclosures 1. Air a. Emissions b. Actions/targets undertaken 2. Water c. Emissions d. Actions/targets 3. Waste e. Situation f. Control /reduction g. Recycling 4. Land h. Emissions i. Action /targets 5. Results 6. Products j. Product related disclosures k. Product development

SUSTAIN Disclosures related to sustainability 1. Any mention of sustainability 2. Involvement/Commitment to UNCED, Brundtland, Rio, Kyoto 3. Conservation of natural habitat/species

LIAB Environmental liabilities 1. Financial disclosure 2. Balance sheet within voluntary section 3. Justification for no disclosure

ACT Environment-related activities 1. Training of staff 2. Project involvement 3. Awards 4. Sponsoring

BRR Business related risk 1. Specific environmental risks related to the business 2. Attempts to reduce/manage these risks 3. Costs involved

PRESS Pressure Groups 1. Shareholders 2. Other Stakeholders 3. Government

SER Separate Environmental Report 1. Available

198

2. Reference within annual report 3. Contact details

ENE Energy related disclosures 1. Conservation/saving attempts 2. Use, development, exploration of alternative energy sources

IRP Information retrieval processes to obtain feedback from stakeholders

Other Any other environmental disclosure not fitting the categories above

199

Appendix 3: Content analysis categories used by Hackston, D. and Milne, M. J. (1996) Environment

(1) Environmental pollution

• Pollution control in the conduct of the business operations; capital, operating and

research and development expenditures for pollution abatement;

• Statements indicating that the company’s operations are non-polluting or that they

are in compliance with pollution laws and regulations;

• Statements indicating that pollution from operations has been or will be reduced;

• Prevention or repair of damage to the environment resulting from processing or

natural resources, e.g. land reclamation or reforestation;

• Conservation of natural resources, e.g. recycling glass, metals, oil, water and

paper;

• using recycled materials;

• Efficiently using materials resources in the manufacturing process;

• supporting anti-litter campaigns;

• receiving an award relating to the company’s environmental programmes or

policies;

• preventing waste.

(2) Aesthetics

• designing facilities harmonious with the environment;

• Contributions in terms of cash or art/sculptures to beautify the environment;

• Restoring historical buildings/structures.

(3) Other

• Undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the

environment;

200

• Wildlife conservation;

• Protection of the environment, e.g. pest control.

Energy

• Conservation of energy in the conduct of business operations;

• Using energy more efficiently during the manufacturing process;

• Utilizing waste materials for energy production;

• Disclosing energy savings resulting from product recycling;

• Discussing the company’s efforts to reduce energy consumption;

• Disclosing increased energy efficiency of products;

• Research aimed at improving energy efficiency of products;

• Receiving an award for an energy conservation programme;

• Voicing the company’s concern about the energy shortage;

• Disclosing the company’s energy policies.

Employee health and safety

• Reducing or eliminating pollutants, irritants, or hazards in the work environment;

• Promoting employee safety and physical or mental health;

• Disclosing accident statistics;

• Complying with health and safety standards and regulations;

• Receiving a safety award;

• Establishing a safety department/committee/policy;

• Conducting research to improve work safety;

• Providing low cost health care for employees.

Employee other

(1) Employment of minorities or women

• Recruiting or employing racial minorities and/or women;

201

• Disclosing percentage or number of minority and/or women employees in the

workforce and/or in the various managerial levels;

• Establishing goals for minority representation in the workforce;

• Programme for the advancement or minorities in the workplace;

• Employment of other special interest groups, e.g. the handicapped, ex-convicts or

former drug addicts;

• Disclosures about internal advancement statistics.

(2) Employee training

• Training employees through in-house programmes;

• Giving financial assistance to employees in educational institutions or continuing

education courses;

• Establishment of trainee centres.

(3) Employee assistance/benefits

• Providing assistance or guidance to employees who are in the process of retiring or

who have been made redundant;

• Providing staff accommodation/staff home ownership schemes;

• Providing recreational activities/facilities.

(4) Employee remuneration

• Providing amount and/or percentage figures for salaries, wages, PAYE taxes,

superannuation;

• Any policies/objectives/reasons for the company’s remuneration package/schemes.

(5) Employee profiles

• Providing the number of employees in the company and/or at each branch/

subsidiary;

• Providing the occupations/managerial levels involved;

202

• Providing the disposition of staff – where the staff are stationed and the number

involved;

• Providing statistics on the number of staff, the length of service in the company and

their age groups;

• Providing per employee statistics, e.g. assets per employee and sales per

employee;

• Providing information on the qualifications of employees recruited.

(6) Employee share purchase schemes

• Providing information on the existence of or amount and value of shares offered to

employees under a share purchase scheme or pension programme;

• Providing any other profit sharing schemes.

(7) Employee morale

• Providing information on the company/management’s relationships with the

employees in an effort to improve job satisfaction and employee motivation;

• Providing information on the stability of the workers’ jobs and the company’s future;

• Providing information on the availability of a separate employee report;

• Providing information about any awards for effective communication with

employees;

• Providing information about communication with employees on management styles

and management programmes which may directly affect the employees.

(8) Industrial relations

• Reporting on the company’s relationship with trade unions and/or workers;

• Reporting on any strikes, industrial actions/activities and the resultant losses in

terms of time and productivity;

• Providing information on how industrial action was reduced/negotiated.

203

(9) Other

• Improvements to the general working conditions – both in the factories and for the

office staff;

• Information on the re-organization of the company/discussions/branches which

affect the staff in any way;

• The closing down of any part of the organization, the resultant redundancies

created, and any relocation/retraining efforts made by the company to retain staff;

• Information and statistics on employee turnover;

• Information about support for day-care, maternity and paternity leave.

Products

(1) Product development

• Information on developments related to the company’s products, including its

packaging, eg. Making containers reusable;

• The amount/percentage figures of research and development expenditure and/or

its benefits;

• Information on any research projects set up by the company to improve its product

in any way.

(2) Product safety

• Disclosing that products meet applicable safety standards;

• Making products safer for consumers;

• Conducting safety research on the company’s products;

• Disclosing improved or more sanitary procedures in the processing and preparation

of products;

• Information on the safety of the firm’s product.

(3) Product quality

204

• Information on the quality of the firm’s products as reflected in prizes/awards

received;

• Verifiable information that the quality of the firm’s product has increased (e.g. ISO

9000).

Community involvement

• Donations of cash, products or employee services to support established

community activities, events, organizations, education and the arts;

• Summer or part-time employment of students;

• Sponsoring public health projects;

• Aiding medical research;

• Sponsoring educational conferences, seminars or art exhibits;

• Funding scholarship programmes or activities;

• Other special community related activities, e.g. opening the company’s facilities to

the public;

• Supporting national pride/government sponsored campaigns;

• Supporting the development or local industries or community programmes and

activities.

Others

(1) Corporate objectives/policies: general disclosure of corporate objectives/policies

relating to the social responsibility of the company to the various segments of

society.

(2) Other: disclosing/reporting to groups in society other than shareholders and

employees, e.g. consumers; any other information that relates to the social

responsibility of the company.

205

Appendix 4: Analysis of individual year.

1. Woodside Petroleum Company Limited (WPL) WPL 2005

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general mention to the environment or

climate change.

8 5 0 3 0 8

1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 3 0 0 3 0 3

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 3 0 0 3 0 3 1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0

2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to

reduce energy consumption. 1 1 0 0 0 1

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on

the environment. 2 1 0 1 0 2

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1. Environmental pollution and

waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions.

1 0 0 1 0 1

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 4 0 0 4 0 4

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 4 1 0 3 0 4

4. Materials 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased

and used. 36 11 0 25 1 35

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or transporting products and

material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not

fitting the categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 62 19 0 43 1 61

206

WPL 2006

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general mention to the environment or

climate change.

12 11 0 1 0 12

1.2 Aims and strategies. 3 2 0 1 0 3 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 2 2 0 0 0 2

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 2 0 0 2 0 2

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on

the environment. 1 0 0 1 0 1

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 6 6 0 0 0 6 3. Environmental pollution and waste

3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce

the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials

4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased

and used. 20 1 0 19 0 20

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or transporting products and

material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not

fitting the categories above. 5 0 0 5 0 5

Total 51 22 0 29 0 51

207

WPL 2007

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general mention to the environment or climate

change.

24 20 0 4 0.5 23.5

1.2 Aims and strategies. 29 27 0 2 0 29 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 5 3 0 2 0 5

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 2 0 0 2 0 2 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 8 0 0 8 0.5 7.5

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

17 7 0 10 0 17

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the

environment. 15 13 0 2 0.5 14.5

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 13 11 0 2 0.5 12.5 3. Environmental pollution and waste

3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 32 21 0 11 0 32

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 29 7 0 22 0 29 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 9 4 0 5 2.5 6.5

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 6 2 0 4 0 6 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the

waste. 5 3 0 2 0 5

3.6 Information related to any spills. 5 0 0 5 0 5

4. Materials 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 25 5 0 20 0 25

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and

used. 19 1 0 18 0 19

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 1 0 0 1 0.5 0.5

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 3 3 0 0 0 3

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting

the categories above. 5 0 0 5 0 5

Total 252 127 0 125 5 247

208

WPL 2008

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general mention to the environment or climate

change.

17 16 1 0 0 17

1.2 Aims and strategies. 10 10 0 0 0 10 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 1 0 0 1 0 1

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 14 2 1 11 0 14

1.6 fines 1 0 0 1 0 1 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

30 6 0 24 0 30

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 13 7 0 6 0.5 12.5

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 4 4 0 0 0 4

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 27 13 0 14 1 26

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 23 9 0 14 0 23 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 4 2 0 2 0 4 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the

waste. 2 0 0 2 0 2

3.6 Information related to any spills. 12 8 0 4 0 12 4. Materials

4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 2 1 0 1 0 2

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. Biodiversity and land

6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used.

12 1 0 11 0 12

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 5 2 0 3 0 5

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 8 8 0 0 0 8

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting

the categories above. 3 3 0 0 0 3

Total 188 92 2 94 1.5 186.5

209

WPL 2009

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general mention to the environment or climate

change.

27 25 0 2 0 27

1.2 Aims and strategies. 1 1 0 0 0 1

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 3 3 0 0 0 3

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 5 5 0 0 0 5

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 12 1 0 11 0 12

1.6 fines 2 0 0 2 0 2 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

13 3 0 10 0 13

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the

environment. 25 20 0 5 2 25

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 8 8 0 0 0 8

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 19 4 0 15 0 19

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 32 16 0 16 0 32

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 4 3 0 1 0 4 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 6 1 0 5 0 6

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 22 16 0 6 0 22

4. Materials 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 10 0 0 10 0 10

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. Biodiversity and land

6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used.

19 1 0 18 0 19

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 2 0 0 2 1 1

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 5 5 0 0 0 5

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting

the categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 215 112 0 103 3 214

210

WPL 2010

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general mention to the environment or climate

change.

27 27 0 0 0 27

1.2 Aims and strategies. 9 9 0 0 0 9 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 5 5 0 0 0 5

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 16 5 0 11 0 16

1.6 fines 3 1 0 2 0 3 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

13 4 0 9 0 13

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 31 20 0 11 0.5 30.5

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 14 14 0 0 0 14 3. Environmental pollution and waste

3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 10 7 0 3 0 10

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 23 9 0 14 0 23 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 6 6 0 0 0 6

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 3 0 0 3 0 3 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 4 1 0 3 0 4

3.6 Information related to any spills. 9 3 0 6 0 9 4. Materials

4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water

5.1 discharged or used water. 14 3 0 11 0 14

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 3 3 0 0 0 3 6. Biodiversity and land

6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 16 1 0 15 0 16

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 3 3 0 0 0 3

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 209 121 0 88 0.5 208.5

211

2. Origin Energy Company Limited (ORG) ORG 2005

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general mention to the environment or climate

change.

25 22 0 3 0 25

1.2 Aims and strategies. 18 18 0 0 0 18 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 3 2 0 1 0 3

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 9 3 0 6 0 9

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

25 14 0 11 0 25

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 5 4 0 1 0 5

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 13 13 0 0 0 13 3. Environmental pollution and waste

3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 23 7 0 16 0 23

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 25 15 0 10 0 25 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 5 4 0 1 0 5

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the

waste. 2 1 0 1 0 2

3.6 Information related to any spills. 2 1 0 1 0 2 4. Materials

4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 2 1 0 1 0.5 1.5 5. Water

5.1 discharged or used water. 2 0 0 2 0 2

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 9 5 0 4 0 9 6. Biodiversity and land

6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used.

4 0 0 4 0 4

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 16 11 0 5 0 16 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 5 5 0 0 0 5

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

3 0 0 3 0 3

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting

the categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 196 126 0 70 0.5 195.5

212

ORG 2006

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general mention to the environment or climate

change.

17 17 0 0 0 17

1.2 Aims and strategies. 2 1 1 0 0 2 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 4 1 0 3 0 4

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 3 1 2 0 2 1

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 1 0 0 1 0 1

1.6 fines 2 0 2 0 2 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

4 2 0 2 0 4

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 3 3 0 0 0 3

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 7 7 0 0 0 7 3. Environmental pollution and waste

3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 12 5 4 3 0 12

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 9 1 6 2 0 9

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 9 6 0 3 0 9

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 1 1 0 0 0 1 4. Materials

4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water

5.1 discharged or used water. 2 0 2 0 0 2

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 2 1 1 0 0 2 6. Biodiversity and land

6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 8 6 2 0 2 6 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 15 4 4 7 1 14

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 101 56 24 21 7 94

213

ORG 2007

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general mention to the environment or climate

change.

17 16 0 1 0 17

1.2 Aims and strategies. 21 19 0 2 0 21 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 4 4 0 0 0 4

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 4 2 0 2 0 4

1.6 fines 1 1 0 0 0 1 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

15 6 2 8 3.5 11.5

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2 2 0 0 0 2

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 17 17 0 0 0 17 3. Environmental pollution and waste

3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 32 7 15 10 1 31

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 11 0 8 3 0 11

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 18 12 4 2 2 16

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 1 0 0 1 0 1

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 2 2 0 0 0 2

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials

4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 3 0 3 0 0 3

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 5 2 1 2 0 5

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and

used. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 7 6 0 1 0 7

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 4 4 0 0 0 4

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

2 2 0 0 0 2

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 4 4 0 0 0 4

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting

the categories above. 2 1 1 0 1 1

Total 172 107 34 32 7.5 164.5

214

ORG 2008

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general mention to the environment or climate

change.

19 14 2 3 2 17

1.2 Aims and strategies. 20 17 3 0 0 20 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 4 4 0 0 0 4

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 4 4 0 0 0 4 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 1 1 0 0 0 1

1.6 fines 1 1 0 0 0 1 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

22 7 0 15 1 21

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 3 2 0 1 0 3

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 9 9 0 0 0 9

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 24 4 10 10 0 24

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 9 0 8 1 0 9

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 13 9 1 3 0 13

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 4 1 0 3 0 4

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 1 1 0 0 0 1

3.6 Information related to any spills. 7 0 0 7 0 7 4. Materials

4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 8 3 4 1 0 8

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 5 3 2 0 0 5

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 3 2 1 0 0 3

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 11 8 2 1 2 9

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 3 3 0 0 0 3

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 3 0 1 2 1 2

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 174 93 34 47 6 168

215

ORG 2009

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general mention to the environment or climate

change.

9 8 1 0 1 8

1.2 Aims and strategies. 22 8 2 11 0 22 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 1 1 0 0 0 1

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 6 6 0 0 0 6

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

24 10 0 14 1 23

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 14 11 0 3 0 14

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 10 10 0 0 0 10

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 7 0 7 0 0 7

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 9 2 4 3 0 9

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 4 2 1 1 1 3 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 3 0 0 3 0 3

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 1 0 0 1 0 1

3.6 Information related to any spills. 2 0 0 2 0 2 4. Materials

4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water

5.1 discharged or used water. 4 0 3 1 0 4

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 7 6 1 0 0 7 6. Biodiversity and land

6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 9 5 2 2 2 7 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 4 4 0 0 0 4

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 3 3 0 0 0 3

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 139 76 21 41 5 134

216

ORG 2010

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general mention to the environment or climate

change.

12 4 8 0 2 10

1.2 Aims and strategies. 17 14 2 1 0 17

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 2 2 0 0 0 2

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 1 0 0 1 1 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 5 2 0 3 0 5

1.6 fines 1 1 0 0 0 1 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

19 8 0 11 3.5 15.5

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 3 2 0 1 0 3

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 10 10 0 0 0 10

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 8 0 6 2 0 8

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 2 0 0 2 0.5 1.5

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 3 3 0 0 0 3

3.6 Information related to any spills. 2 2 0 0 0 2 4. Materials

4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water

5.1 discharged or used water. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 3 3 0 0 0 3 6. Biodiversity and land

6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 1 0 0 1 0 1

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 14 7 2 5 6 8

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 1 0 0 1 0 1

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 104 58 18 28 13 91

217

3. Santos Company Limited (STO) STO 2005

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 11 10 0 1 0 11

1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 4 4 0 0 0 4

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 1 0 0 1 0 1

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

2 0 2 0 0.5 1.5

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 11 11 0 0 0 11

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 8 8 0 0 0 8

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 4 3 1 0 0 4

4. Materials 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 1 0 1 0 0 1

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 18 17 1 0 1 17

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 5 3 1 1 5 0

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 7 3 0 4 0 7 7. Products and services

7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or transporting products and material used for the

company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 72 59 6 7 6.5 65.5

218

STO 2006

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general mention to the environment or climate

change.

41 37 4 0 1 40

1.2 Aims and strategies. 5 5 0 0 0 5 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 4 2 0 2 0 4

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 13 7 0 6 3 10

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

1 1 0 0 0 1

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 10 8 2 0 0 10

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 27 27 0 0 0 27 3. Environmental pollution and waste

3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 10 7 3 0 0 10

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 6 5 0 1 1 5

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 2 0 0 2 0 2

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 8 4 1 3 0 8

3.6 Information related to any spills. 6 4 2 0 0 6 4. Materials

4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 2 0 0 2 0 2

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 4 4 0 0 0 4

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 4 3 0 1 0 4

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and

used. 18 16 1 1 0 18

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 7 7 0 0 6 1

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 3 3 0 0 0 3

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 5 5 0 0 0 5

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting

the categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 176 145 13 18 11 165

219

STO 2007

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general mention to the environment or climate

change.

32 30 2 0 0 32

1.2 Aims and strategies. 3 2 0 1 0 3

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 2 1 0 1 0 2

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 3 3 0 0 0 3

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 4 4 0 0 0 4

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 4 2 0 2 2 2

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 26 26 0 0 0 26

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 8 3 5 0 0 8

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 15 13 0 2 1 14

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 9 8 1 0 0 9 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the

waste. 5 4 1 0 1 4

3.6 Information related to any spills. 18 11 2 5 0 18

4. Materials 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 2 0 1 1 0 2

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 8 7 1 0 0 8

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 9 7 0 2 0 9

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and

used. 20 15 1 2 0 20

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 8 7 0 1 0 8

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 2 2 0 0 0 2

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 10 9 0 1 0 10

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting

the categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 188 154 14 18 4 184

220

STO 2008

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general mention to the environment or climate

change.

27 27 0 0 0 27

1.2 Aims and strategies. 3 3 0 0 0 3

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 8 6 0 2 0 8

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 3 1 0 2 0 3

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6 fines 1 1 0 0 1 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

28 24 3 1 0 28

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 7 7 0 0 0 7

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 15 12 2 1 0 15 3. Environmental pollution and waste

3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 18 7 5 6 0 18

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 1 0 1 0 0 1

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 12 9 0 3 0 12

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 4 4 0 0 0 4

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 9 1 2 6 0 9

3.6 Information related to any spills. 18 13 2 3 0 18 4. Materials

4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 1 0 1 0 1 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 12 11 0 1 0 12

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 3 1 0 2 0 3 6. Biodiversity and land

6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used.

5 3 1 1 0 5

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 7 5 2 0 6 1

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 2 2 0 0 0 2

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

1 1 0 0 0 1

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 4 4 0 0 0 4

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting

the categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 189 142 19 28 8 181

221

STO 2009

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general mention to the environment or climate

change.

20 20 0 0 0 20

1.2 Aims and strategies. 3 3 0 0 0 3

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 7 7 0 0 0 7

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6 fines 4 2 1 1 2 2 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

22 15 4 3 0 22

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 22 15 7 0 0 22 3. Environmental pollution and waste

3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 12 4 5 3 0 12

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 1 0 1 0 0 1

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 10 8 0 2 0 10

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 8 4 2 2 0 8

3.6 Information related to any spills. 7 5 2 0 0 7 4. Materials

4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 1 0 0 1 0 1

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 1 1 0 0 0 1

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 4 3 1 0 0 4

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 15 12 0 3 0 15 6. Biodiversity and land

6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used.

5 2 1 2 0 5

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 15 6 4 5 4 11

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 4 4 0 0 0 4 7. Products and services

7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or transporting products and material used for the

company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 2 2 0 0 0 2

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting

the categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 163 113 28 22 6 157

222

STO 2010

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general mention to the environment or climate

change.

26 25 1 0 0 26

1.2 Aims and strategies. 11 4 6 1 0 11

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 7 6 1 0 0 7

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 any general environmental accident. 5 2 1 2 0 5

1.6 fines 3 0 1 2 2 1 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

25 11 7 7 0 25

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 15 15 0 0 0 15

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 26 24 1 1 0 26 3. Environmental pollution and waste

3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 8 2 3 3 0 8

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 1 0 1 0 0 1

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 2 1 1 0 0 2

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 2 0 1 1 0 2

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 4 3 1 0 0 4

3.6 Information related to any spills. 6 2 4 0 0 6

4. Materials 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 8 6 2 0 0 8

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 10 6 0 4 0 10

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and

used. 7 7 0 0 0 7

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 10 5 4 1 5 5

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 8 6 2 0 0 8 7. Products and services

7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or transporting products and material used for the

company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 4 1 0 3 1 3

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting

the categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 188 126 37 25 8 180

223

4. Oil Search Company Limited (OSH) OSH 2005

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 10 10 0 0 0 10

1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 1 1 0 0 0 1

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 2 2 0 0 0 2

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 1 1 0 0 0 1

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 1 0 0 1 0 1 4. Materials

4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 9 3 0 6 0 9

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 8 3 5 0 8 0

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 32 20 5 7 8 24

224

OSH 2006

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 14 14 0 0 0 14

1.2 Aims and strategies. 1 1 0 0 0 1 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 2 2 0 0 0 2

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 3 3 0 0 0 3

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 1 1 0 0 0 1

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials

4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water

5.1 discharged or used water. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 8 5 2 1 0 8

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 10 4 6 0 9 1

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 39 30 8 1 9 30

225

OSH 2007

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 7 7 0 0 0 7

1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 2 2 0 0 0 2

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 1 1 0 0 0 1

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 1 1 0 0 0 1

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 2 0 1 1 0 2

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 1 1 0 0 0 1

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4. Materials 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 2 2 0 0 0 2

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 7 0 7 0 7 0

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or transporting

products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 23 14 8 1 7 16

226

OSH 2008

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 12 12 0 0 0 12

1.2 Aims and strategies. 3 3 0 0 0 3

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 2 2 0 0 0 2

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 5 5 0 0 0 5

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 1 1 0 0 0 1

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 2 0 1 1 0 2

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4. Materials 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 5 2 1 2 0 5

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 12 6 6 0 12 0

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 1 1 0 0 0 1

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 43 32 8 3 12 31

227

OSH 2009

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 13 13 0 0 0 13

1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 3 3 0 0 0 3

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 4 4 0 0 0 4

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 7 7 0 0 0 7

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3 1 1 1 0 3

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials

4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 10 4 0 6 0 10

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 14 11 3 0 14 0

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 1 1 0 0 0 1

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 55 44 4 7 14 41

228

OSH 2010

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general mention to the environment or climate

change.

43 43 0 0 0 43

1.2 Aims and strategies. 16 16 0 0 0 16 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 6 6 0 0 0 6

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 5 5 0 0 0 5

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

14 8 4 2 0 14

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 3 3 0 0 0 3

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 31 29 2 0 2 29

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 18 7 6 5 0 18

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 5 3 1 1 0 5 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 19 14 0 5 2 17

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 26 23 3 0 0 26 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the

waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 6 2 2 2 0 6 4. Materials

4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4 3 1 0 0 4

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 1 0 0 1 0 1 5. Water

5.1 discharged or used water. 21 13 6 2 0 21

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. Biodiversity and land

6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used.

32 18 1 13 0 32

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 14 8 5 1 13 1

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 20 19 1 0 0 20 7. Products and services

7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or transporting products and material used for the

company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 4 0 0 4 0 4

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting

the categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 288 220 32 36 17 271

229

5. Worleyparsons Company Limited (WOR) WOR 2005

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 9 9 0 0 0 9

1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 5 5 0 0 0 5

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 1 1 0 0 0 1

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste

3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 2 2 0 0 0 2

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 2 2 0 0 0 2

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials

4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 2 2 0 0 0 2

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 2 2 0 0 0 2

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 4 0 0 4 0 4

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 27 23 0 4 0 27

230

WOR 2006

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 15 14 0 1 1 14

1.2 Aims and strategies. 1 1 0 0 0 1

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 4 4 0 0 0 4

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 2 2 0 0 0 2

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4. Materials 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 3 3 0 0 3 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 2 2 0 0 0 2

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 27 26 0 1 4 23

231

WOR 2007

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 7 7 0 0 0 7

1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 6 6 0 0 0 6

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

1 1 0 0 0 1

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 4 4 0 0 0 4

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials

4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 3 3 0 0 3 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 21 21 0 0 3 18

232

WOR 2008

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 6 6 0 0 0 6

1.2 Aims and strategies. 2 2 0 0 0 2

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 6 6 0 0 0 6

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 1 1 0 0 0 1

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 2 2 0 0 0 2

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 2 2 0 0 0 2

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4. Materials 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 3 3 0 0 3 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 1 1 0 0 0 1

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 23 23 0 0 3 20

233

WOR 2009

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 12 10 1 1 1 11

1.2 Aims and strategies. 1 1 0 0 0 1 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 8 8 0 0 0 8

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

1 0 0 1 0 1

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 1 1 0 0 0 1

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 2 2 0 0 0 2 3. Environmental pollution and waste

3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 5 4 0 1 0 5

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 2 2 0 0 0 2 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4. Materials 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 3 3 0 0 3 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 2 2 0 0 0 2

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 2 2 0 0 0 2

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 39 35 1 3 4 35

234

WOR 2010

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 8 6 2 0 1 7

1.2 Aims and strategies. 4 4 0 0 0 4

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 8 8 0 0 0 8

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

2 2 0 0 0 2

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2 2 0 0 0 2

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 2 2 0 0 0 2

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 2 2 0 0 0 2

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 1 1 0 0 0 1

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials

4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 3 3 0 0 3 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water

5.1 discharged or used water. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 3 3 0 0 0 3

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 2 2 0 0 0 2

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 37 35 2 0 4 33

235

6. Karoon Gas Australia Company Limited (KAR) KAR 2005

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 2 2 0 0 0 2

1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 6 6 0 0 0 6

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 1 1 0 0 0 1

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste

3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials

4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 10 0 1 9 0 10

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 19 9 1 9 0 19

236

KAR 2006

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 5 2 0 3 0 5

1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 7 7 0 0 0 7

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 1 1 0 0 0 1

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4. Materials 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 9 3 0 6 1 8

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 22 13 0 9 1 21

237

KAR 2007

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 2 2 0 0 0 2

1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 7 7 0 0 0 7

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 1 1 0 0 0 1

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste

3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials

4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 6 0 1 5 0 6

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 16 10 1 5 0 16

238

KAR 2008

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 2 2 0 0 0 2

1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 10 10 0 0 0 10

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 any general environmental accident. 1 1 0 0 0 1

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials

4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water

5.1 discharged or used water. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 24 9 0 15 0 24

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 37 22 0 15 0 37

239

KAR 2009

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 4 4 0 0 0 4

1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 21 21 0 0 0 21

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 1 1 0 0 0 1

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

6 6 0 0 0 6

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste

3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 6 6 0 0 0 6

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4. Materials 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 13 2 0 11 0 13

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 51 40 0 11 0 51

240

KAR 2010

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 4 4 0 0 0 4

1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 18 18 0 0 0 18

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 any general environmental accident. 1 1 0 0 0 1

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

3 3 0 0 0 3

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste

3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 6 6 0 0 0 6

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials

4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 13 0 0 13 0 13

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 45 32 0 13 0 45

241

7. Aurora Oil & Gas Company Limited (AUT) AUT 2005

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general mention to the environment or climate

change.

1 1 0 0 0 1

1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 4 4 0 0 0 4

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5. Information related to recycle or reduce the

waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials

4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water

5.1 discharged or used water. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. Biodiversity and land

6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used.

2 1 1 0 0 2

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 1 1 0 0 1 0 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting

the categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 8 7 1 0 1 7

242

AUT 2006

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 1 1 0 0 0 1

1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 1 1 0 0 0 1

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4. Materials 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 4 0 0 4 0 4

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 5 5 0 0 5 0

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 11 7 0 4 5 6

243

AUT 2007

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 2 2 0 0 0 2

1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 3 3 0 0 0 3

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4. Materials 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 13 1 0 12 0 13

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 6 6 0 0 6 0

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 24 12 0 12 6 18

244

AUT 2008

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 1 1 0 0 0 1

1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 4 4 0 0 0 4

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste

3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials

4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 8 1 0 7 0 8

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 7 7 0 0 7 0

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 20 13 0 7 7 13

245

AUT 2009

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 1 1 0 0 0 1

1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 3 3 0 0 0 3

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 1 1 0 0 0 1

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials

4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 7 0 2 5 0 7

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 6 6 0 0 6 0

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 18 11 2 5 6 12

246

AUT 2010

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general mention to the environment or climate

change.

1 1 0 0 0 1

1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 2 2 0 0 0 2

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

1 1 0 0 0 1

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 1 1 0 0 0 1

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 1 1 0 0 0 1

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4. Materials 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water

5.1 discharged or used water. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and

used. 5 1 1 3 0 5

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 7 7 0 0 7 0

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services

7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or transporting products and material used for the

company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting

the categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 18 14 1 3 7 11

247

8. Beach Petroleum Company limited (BPT) BPT 2005

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 2 2 0 0 0 2

1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 4 4 0 0 0 4

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4. Materials 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water

5.1 discharged or used water. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 13 6 2 5 0 13

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 3 3 0 0 3 0

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 22 15 2 5 3 19

248

BPT 2006

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 4 4 0 0 0 4

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4. Materials 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 15 7 3 5 0 15

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 3 3 0 0 0 3

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 22 14 3 5 0 22

249

BPT 2007

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 1 1 0 0 0 1

1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 4 4 0 0 0 4

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 1 1 0 0 0 1

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4. Materials 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 17 6 5 6 0 17

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 3 3 0 0 3 0

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services

7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or transporting products and material used for the

company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 26 15 5 6 3 23

250

BPT 2008

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 5 5 0 0 0 5

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 1 1 0 0 0 1

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials

4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 14 4 5 5 0 14

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 3 3 0 0 3 0

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 23 13 5 5 3 20

251

BPT 2009

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 5 5 0 0 0 5

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 2 2 0 0 0 2

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4. Materials 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 1 1 0 0 1 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 14 4 6 4 0 14

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 3 3 0 0 3 0

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 25 15 6 4 4 21

252

BPT 2010

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 5 5 0 0 0 5

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 1 1 0 0 0 1

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 1 1 0 0 0 1

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 1 1 0 0 0 1

4. Materials 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water

5.1 discharged or used water. 1 1 0 0 1 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 18 3 9 7 1 17

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 3 3 0 0 3 0

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 30 15 9 7 5 25

253

9. AWE Company Limited (AWE) AWE 2005

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 1 1 0 0 0 1

1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 9 9 0 0 0 9

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 1 1 0 0 0 1

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4. Materials 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 13 8 3 2 1.5 11.5

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 5 5 0 0 5 0 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 29 24 3 2 6.5 22.5

254

AWE 2006

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 2 2 0 0 0 2

1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 9 9 0 0 0 9

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 1 1 0 0 0 1

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4. Materials 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 7 5 2 0 0 7

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 7 7 0 0 6 1

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 26 24 2 0 6 20

255

AWE 2007

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 3 3 0 0 0 3

1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 9 9 0 0 0 9

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 1 1 0 0 0 1

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4. Materials 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 12 6 4 2 0 12

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 6 6 0 0 6 0

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 31 25 4 2 6 25

256

AWE 2008

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 11 11 0 0 0 11

1.2 Aims and strategies. 6 6 0 0 0 6

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 12 12 0 0 0 12

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

1 1 0 0 0 1

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 1 1 0 0 0 1

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 8 8 0 0 0 8

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 1 1 0 0 0 1

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 1 0 0 1 0 1

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 1 1 0 0 0 1

3.6 Information related to any spills. 12 10 0 2 0 12

4. Materials 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 9 6 2 1 0 9

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 11 10 0 1 7 4

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 1 1 0 0 0 1

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 75 68 2 5 7 68

257

AWE 2009

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general mention to the environment or climate

change.

23 22 0 1 0 23

1.2 Aims and strategies. 13 13 0 0 0 13

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 12 12 0 0 0 12

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 1 0 0 1 0 1

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 27 27 0 0 0 27

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 29 20 4 5 3.5 25.5

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 2 2 0 0 0 2

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 7 6 1 0 1 6

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 4 3 1 0 0 4

4. Materials 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 1 0 0 1 0 1

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and

used. 17 7 4 6 0 17

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 7 7 0 0 6 1

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 1 1 0 0 0 1 7. Products and services

7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or transporting products and material used for the

company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 2 2 0 0 0 2

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting

the categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 146 122 10 14 10.5 135.5

258

AWE 2010

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general mention to the environment or climate

change.

20 20 0 0 0 20

1.2 Aims and strategies. 10 10 0 0 0 10

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 18 18 0 0 0 18

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 1 0 0 1 0 1

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

1 1 0 0 0 1

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 13 13 0 0 0 13

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 14 9 4 1 1 13

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 3 1 1 1 0 3

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 2 2 1 0 0 2

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 4 3 1 0 0 4

4. Materials 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 1 0 0 1 0 1

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 19 7 4 8 0 19

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 7 7 0 0 6 1

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 1 1 0 0 0 1

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 1 1 0 0 0 1

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 115 93 11 12 7 108

259

10. Eastern Star Gas Company Limited (ESG) ESG 2005

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 3 3 0 0 0 3

1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 4 4 0 0 0 4

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste

3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4. Materials 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 11 3 0 8 0 11

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 9 7 0 2 9 0

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 27 17 0 10 9 18

260

ESG 2006

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 3 3 0 0 0 3

1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 4 4 0 0 0 4

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 1 1 0 0 0 1

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4. Materials 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 1 0 1 0 1 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water

5.1 discharged or used water. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 17 5 0 12 0 17

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 5 5 0 0 0 5

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 31 18 1 12 1 30

261

ESG 2007

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 6 6 0 0 0 6

1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 5 5 0 0 0 5

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 2 2 0 0 0 2

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials

4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 1 0 1 0 1 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 1 1 0 0 0 1

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 1 1 0 0 0 1

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 6 2 1 3 0 6

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 5 5 0 0 5 0

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 27 22 2 3 6 21

262

ESG 2008

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 4 4 0 0 0 4

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 2 2 0 0 0 2

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4. Materials 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 1 0 1 0 1 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water

5.1 discharged or used water. 3 3 0 0 0 3

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 1 1 0 0 0 1

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 8 3 0 5 0 8

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 6 5 1 0 6 0 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 25 18 2 5 7 18

263

ESG 2009

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 2 2 0 0 0 2

1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 5 5 0 0 0 5

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste

3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials

4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 1 0 1 0 1 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Water 5.1 discharged or used water. 3 1 0 2 0 3

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 11 3 8 0 0 11

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 9 7 2 0 9 0

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services

7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or transporting products and material used for the

company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 31 18 11 2 10 21

264

ESG 2010

Categories disclosure

Level of details of disclosure Type of information

1 2 3 Financial Non-financial

1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general

mention to the environment or climate change. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 6 6 0 0 0 6

1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability

2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce energy consumption.

0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3. Environmental pollution and waste 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0

4. Materials 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 3 0 3 0 3 0

4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water

5.1 discharged or used water. 5 5 0 0 0 5

5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 1 0 0 1 0 1

6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 8 4 0 4 1 7

6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 5 4 1 0 5 0

6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or

transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.

0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products, activities and services. 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the

categories above. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 28 19 4 5 9 19