1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Business sustainability is gaining considerable attention as socially responsible investors prefer to invest in sustainable and socially responsible corporations while regulators worldwide recommend and/or demand that public companies disclose the non-financial dimensions of their sustainability performance in areas of governance, social, ethical and environmental (GSEE), and diversity activities. Business sustainability with a keen focus on the achievement of long-term stakeholder value creation is gaining momentum with investors with long-term investment horizons and business organizations that value their customers' satisfaction, employees' welfare and social and environmental responsibilities. Business organizations worldwide and those in Asia will be encouraged and/or required to disclose their non-financial GSEE performance along with financial economic sustainability performance. This chapter presents future trends in sustainability performance, reporting and assurance worldwide and particularly in Asia by exploring the best practices of sustainability in moving toward the achievement of profit-with-purpose companies, the use of the Extensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) in sustainability reporting and the use of continuous auditing for sustainability assurance.

2. INTRODUCTION

Starting in 2017, more than 6,000 public companies in Europe are required to disclose their sustainability performance information regarding governance, social, environmental and diversity activities.¹ Delaware-governed entities are recommended to disclose their commitments to corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sustainability beginning October 2018 by voluntarily certifying their compliance with sustainability standards in Delaware.² Other countries are expected to follow suit. The global move toward the adoption of benefit corporations and profit-with-purpose companies and toward sustainability performance, reporting and assurance is inevitable as sustainability initiatives are being integrated into corporate strategies, supply chain, decisions, actions and performance. Countries in Asia have also started integrating sustainability performance reporting into their corporate reporting.

The content and format of sustainability reporting is also evolving toward online real-time reporting. The Extensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) format is being used in financial, tax and statutory reporting and its relevance to sustainability reporting is being explored by researchers. Continuous auditing techniques are being applied to audit the automated financial reporting process and their application in providing continuous assurance on sustainability reporting is examined in this chapter. The XBRL platform for sustainability reporting and the outline of the implementation methods for using XBRL-based architectures for sustainability reporting are viewed by many as the future for corporate reporting and assurance services. Several stock exchanges worldwide require their listed companies to disclose sustainability performance information. Best practices of business sustainability development, programs, and performance are being initiated, and reporting and assurance established. This chapter discusses the best practices of sustainability performance, reporting, and assurance in action as well as the future of business sustainability worldwide and in Asia.

3. SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING GUIDELINES

The terms “sustainability reporting,” “integrated reporting,” “environmental, social and governance (ESG) reporting,” “corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting,” and “risk compliance and governance (RCG),” have been used interchangeably in business literature to describe reports with a wide range of coverage and different degrees of focus on risk and performance in relation to environmental, social, or governance issues.³ Sustainability reporting is a complex and not easily understood process. As such, many companies do not, or have not yet begun to, report on their sustainability practices. It is, however, not an insurmountable task, as Nick Topazio states in his article titled, “6 Tips for Integrated Thinking,” and he lists a few ways by which companies can more easily prepare integrated sustainability reports:⁴

1. Value Creation: A business organization must understand what makes it tick, what makes it stand above others and what inputs and outputs come into and out of the organization. This is more all-encompassing than a simple production line, as all organizations have multiple relationships that are important for many reasons, and these are all interconnected. The main objective of integrated reporting is to reflect the company's stakeholder value creation.
2. Current and Future Trends: An organization should be familiar not only with the current environment in which it operates, but also with the environment in which it will operate in the future. This includes not only the positive externalities, such as sales/profit growth, new markets and trends, but also the negative externalities, such as new competition, falling prices/sales and agency issues. An organization should be able to explain why these are happening, how they affect the organization, and what will be done to increase or decrease their effects.
3. Non-Financial Metrics: Determine what non-financial measures may be in play for the organization, study them and report them to the stakeholders as a main point, not just an annex to the financial statements. If it is evident that the organization is not giving prominence to the ways in which it is promoting sustainability, then stakeholders cannot know to what extent their demands are being met. Typical non-financial dimensions of sustainability performance are environmental, social and governance (ESG).
4. Link between Non-Financial Measures and Long-Term Financial Success: Show stakeholders the importance of the above non-financial measures to the long-term financial stability of the organization. An investment in low-energy light bulbs, for instance, may be expensive in the short term, but the cost savings may be great over their lifespan as they last longer and utilize less electricity than do regular light bulbs.
5. Tone at the Top Commitment to Sustainability Performance Reporting: Give evidence to the entire board that all parts of the organization are linked to each other through the financial and non-financial information. The executive members should already be knowledgeable on the practice and theory behind these interactions, but that is not necessarily the case for all members. All members should be able to see, if only at a limited level, how each of these measures affects the others, and have any questions they may have answered. The ways in which new ventures are helping and will help the bottom line in the end should be explained in an easy-to-understand manner, not limited to those with advanced prior knowledge.
6. Holistic and Integrated Sustainability Reporting: Be extensive when it comes to reporting. While few would read a report with every single piece of sustainability information that an organization has made available, readers should be able to get a good overview of the measures that the organization is putting forth to create sustainable value. An important aspect of this is that the information should be easy to read and follow, as well as interconnected. This should help the organization to make decisions in a better manner.

The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) releases guidelines to aid companies in their pursuit of sustainable reporting. The latest version, known as G4, was released in May 2013 and seeks to be the most comprehensive detailing of the steps companies should take to ensure compliance with the best practices of sustainability reporting. The guidelines are divided into two categories: (1) Principles and disclosures and (2) Implementation. The first category aids the business in preparing its sustainability report(s). The second category gives guidance on how to implement the use of data in a proper and efficient manner. The suggested methodology for generating a proper sustainability report is as follows:⁵

1. Obtain an overview of the G4 reporting guidelines.
2. Choose whether to make the report comprehensive or focused solely on core issues.
3. Prepare to disclose general standard disclosures used by all companies.
   1. Identify the General Standard Disclosures to use for the appropriate choice made in Step 2 and check if any apply to the industry.
   2. Plan out the process to disclose these General Standard Disclosures in line with standards of quality.
4. Prepare to disclose specific standard disclosures material to the company.
5. Prepare the sustainability report.

As these guidelines are followed and enacted, companies that comply with them should be well on the road to having a sustainable practice. The GRI requests that companies that release sustainability reports send these reports to the GRI to ensure that their guidelines are being followed in a proper manner. The GRI Reporting Principles are used to define the content and the quality of the sustainability reports and address stakeholder inclusiveness, sustainability context, materiality, completeness, comparability, accuracy, timeliness, reliability, clarity and transparency.⁶

4. EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUSTAINABILITY

Identifying and prioritizing key stakeholders to support the sustainable development of a multiple-bottom-line (MBL) will focus on the development of economic, governance, social, ethical and environmental (EGSEE) aspects of the business. The primary objective of business sustainability should be the promotion of sustainable shared value creation for all stakeholders. To effectively achieve this objective, business organizations worldwide should focus on enhancing shareholder wealth and customer satisfaction, retaining talented employees, operational efficiency, innovation, long-term growth and engagement in social and environmental responsibility as well as the ethical conduct of the business.

Collaborative efforts by the board of directors, management and auditors are very important in sustaining sustainability by setting a tone at the top in promoting business sustainability and committing to sustain sustainability performance, reporting, and assurance. New research by the MIT Sloan Management Review, the Boston Consulting Group, and the UN Global Compact shows that a growing number of companies are turning to collaborations—with suppliers, NGOs, industry alliances, governments and even competitors—to become more sustainable.⁷ The study also looked at board engagement as a driver of sustainability success. Overall, 86 percent of respondents believe that the board of directors should play a strong role in driving their company's sustainability efforts, but only 42 percent of respondents see their boards as moderately or more engaged with the company's sustainability agenda. This disconnect affects performance, since, in companies whose boards are perceived as active supporters, 67 percent of respondents rate collaborations as very or quite successful. In companies whose boards are not engaged, the reported rate of success is less than half of that.

Corporate executives should refocus their efforts from short-term performance and earnings management to long-term growth and performance in creating value for all stakeholders. Management should utilize integrated reporting that provides all stakeholders with a long-term and broad perspective on stakeholder value creation. The integrated reporting framework developed by the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) enables business organizations to articulate their stakeholder value creation and related investment value prospects; establish business strategies, EGSEE sustainability performance and prospects; and engage with all stakeholders to make business sustainability a reality and priority. Integrated reporting should build on conventional financial reporting and expand to include non-financial information on all five EGSEE dimensions of sustainability performance. Management should identify and fully utilize all financial and non-financial drivers of the five EGSEE dimensions of sustainability performance. Management should also use appropriate key performance indicators (KPIs) and their related metrics to assess and manage the risks associated with sustainability performance as discussed in the next section. Auditors provide assurance on sustainability reports, which lends credibility to the reports and makes them objective and reliable.

5. SUSTAINABILITY RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT

Global business is constantly changing and becoming more volatile, unpredictable, and complex. In this challenging business environment, the use of Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) is instrumental in turning challenges into opportunities. The global Financial Crisis of 2007–2009 can be attributed to many factors, including inadequate risk assessment of business transactions. Risk management has become an integral component of managerial functions affecting all transactions and economic activities. The move toward sustainability reporting underscores the importance of an adequate ERM in improving the effectiveness of all five EGSEE dimensions of sustainability performance. ERM is a risk-based approach to managing an enterprise, integrating concepts of strategic planning, operations management, sustainability and internal controls. The goal of implementing ERM is to maximize the value of the firm by managing its overall risks through identifying and reducing the possibility of events which create operational surprises and losses.⁸ Managers have to identify challenges and opportunities and use methods and processes to enable them to take advantage of opportunities in managing related risks. The 2015 ERM survey conducted by the Enterprise Risk Management Initiative at North Carolina State University reveals that a majority of surveyed executives say that risk management is not an important strategic tool at their organizations, most have not managed their risk appetite in pursuit of objectives, and only 25 percent of companies have a formal ERM process in place.⁹

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) published its new standard, ISO 31000: Risk Management—Principles and Guidelines, in 2009, which provides principles and guidelines on risk management.¹⁰ These ISO 31000 risk guidelines assist business organizations in developing, implementing, maintaining, assessing, monitoring and continuously improving their risk management system in minimizing the negative effects of strategic, operational, financial, compliance and reputational risks.¹¹ These risks are interrelated and thus should be properly assessed and managed. For example, an excessive strategic risk can also cause operational, financial, compliance and reputational risks. The compliance risks directly or indirectly associated with business sustainability—including regulatory reforms; health and safety, human rights and labor laws; corporate governance measures; anti-bribery and environmental rules—can vary among organizations and across countries. For example, environmental risks can include direct effects (e.g., emissions trading cost exposures) and indirect consequences (e.g., energy price increases and accompanying reporting and compliance costs) of non-compliance with environmental laws, rules, and regulations. Business organizations should assess and manage the financial risk of producing and disclosing materially misstated financial reports. Minimization of reputational risk is vital to the success of sustainability programs and related performance, as stakeholder satisfaction is essential to sustainable business.

The development of sustainable programs moves the company from being reactive to social and government pressures to being proactive, moving beyond economic performance and toward EGSEE performance and risk management. Business sustainability enables management accountants to establish synergy and congruence between the two managerial concepts of cost management and performance management and to integrate sustainability into the business environment, corporate culture and supply chain processes. The concept of cost management suggests that management maximizes the utilization of scarce resources in generating revenue and delivers high-quality value to customers in improving performance. The concept of performance management suggests that management strikes a proper balance between short-term and long-term ESP as well as a trade-off between financial/quantitative ESP and non-financial/qualitative GSEE sustainability performance. The integrated cost management and performance management concepts under business sustainability suggest that a firm must extend its focus beyond maximizing short-term shareholder profit by considering the impact of its operations on the long-term interests of all stakeholders, including shareholders, creditors, customers, employees, the community, society, and the environment.

5.1 Sustainability Risk Identification and Assessment

A 2014 survey of institutional investors reveals that the primary driver for investors in considering GSEE sustainability issues is to mitigate risk. About three-quarters of responding investors believe that consideration of GSEE sustainability issues reduces investment risk, with other drivers for investors being enhancing performance and avoiding firms associated with unethical conduct.¹² The 2015 top 10 business risks, in order of ranking, are:

1. regulatory concerns regarding risk associated with compliance with laws, rules and regulations affecting the company's operations, governance and financial reporting
2. economic conditions that may affect the company's growth opportunities and market conditions
3. cyber-threat risks of failure to install adequate and effective security measures to prevent and mitigate the effects of cyberattacks
4. succession/recruitment planning—the risk of challenges associated with attracting and maintaining top executives and talented employees
5. cultural response to risk—that corporate culture is not sufficiently and promptly responding to challenges affecting the company's operations and achievement of its strategic goals
6. aversion to change—the risk of resistance to change that may have detrimental effects on business model and core operations
7. information technology (IT) security and privacy costs including the risk of not adequately investing in IT and privacy initiatives
8. reputational risk of not being able to respond to events and crises that affect the company's reputation
9. changes in customer preferences—not being able to satisfy customer demands and changes in their preferences and the associated risks of not sustaining customer loyalty and
10. not meeting performance expectation as related to quality, innovation, delivery and competition.¹³

Brockett and Rezaee (2012) present five risks (strategic, operations, compliance, financial and reputation) relevant to sustainability performance.¹⁴ An emerging risk that is currently threatening the sustainability of all types and sizes of organizations is the risk of potential cyberattacks and security breaches. Consideration and proper assessment and management of those six risks are becoming increasingly important and play an effective role in achieving EGSEE sustainability performance. Exhibit 11.1 presents these six risks and their interactions, and the following subsections briefly describe these risks individually.

5.1.1 Strategic Risk    There are several strategic risks triggered by business sustainability performance, reporting, and assurance including threats to survival and achievement of long-term performance, uncertainty regarding marketing position and volatility in security prices, abnormal changes in consumer demand, risks associated with strategic investments, stakeholder communications and investor relations. Of course, these strategic risks also create opportunities for possible improvements in operating, investing, financing activities, and proper communication with all stakeholders. Strategic risks should be identified, assessed, and managed with a keen focus on minimizing their negative effects and building on the opportunities provided by addressing these risks.

5.1.2 Operational Risk    Operations risks are associated with all five EGSEE dimensions of sustainability performance, the integration of all sustainability performance dimensions into operating activities across operational units, operations technology, supply chain, information technology and other functional areas. One of the greatest challenges for companies in implementing their sustainability strategy revolves around collaboration and integration across operational business units and key functional areas. Operating risks associated with both conventional financial key performance indicators (KPIs) such as earnings and return on investment and conceptualization KPIs such as social and natural performance need to be assessed and managed, and their negative impacts minimized.

5.1.3 Compliance Risk    Business organizations are required to comply with a set of national and international laws, rules, regulations, standards and best practices. Many companies are facing the challenges of complying with these regulatory measures and non-compliance may cause significant risks of interruption and/or discontinuation of their business. Compliance risks need to be assessed and managed, and their negative impacts minimized. To achieve this objective, many companies have created either a board compliance committee or an executive position of compliance and risk officer.

5.1.4 Reputational Risk    Maintaining good business reputation and meeting and exceeding expectations of corporate stakeholders from investors to creditors, suppliers, customers, employees, the environment and society is a major challenge for many businesses. All five EGSEE dimensions of sustainability performance are associated with business reputation, customer satisfaction and the ethical workplace. The company's reputation and related risk should be evaluated on an ongoing basis and any damage to reputation minimized.

5.1.5 Financial Risk    Non-financial dimensions of sustainability performance including ethical, social, governance and environmental affect financial performance. The financial risk of issuing materially misstated financial reports is detrimental to the sustainability of corporations. Sustainability reports are expected to be value-relevant to both external and internal users of such reports. Investors and other stakeholders including suppliers, customers, government and society can obtain more transparent information about EGSEE performance, which enables them to make more informed decisions. Sustainability reporting improves internal management practices by enabling companies to establish better relationships with all stakeholders. Sustainability reporting creates more incentives and opportunity for management to refocus its goals, strategic decisions, and actions from a short-term to a long-term prospect.

Sustainability reporting can be used as a tool for more effective risk assessment and management in relation to identifying both opportunities and risks associated with operations. Thus, more transparent complete, accurate and reliable sustainability disclosure on EGSEE performance creates opportunities to identify and correct operational inefficiencies and reputational and financial risks in order to improve economic performance. Best practices of sustainability practices and reporting suggest that companies that ignore their social, governance, ethics and environmental issues and responsibilities would: (1) not be sustainable in the long term (2) be subject to higher risk of regulatory actions (3) lose their license to operate (4) lose customer reputation and confidence in their products and services (5) not be able to attract the most qualified and talented human capital and workforce (6) incur a higher cost of capital, both debt and equity (7) have less analyst following which may affect their market valuation (8) not attract investors with long-term horizons (9) encourage managerial practices of not being sensitive to or accountable for multi-dimensional EGSEE performance and (10) not set an appropriate tone at the top by directors, officers and corporate leaders in promoting ethical, accountable, socially and environmentally responsible behavior and practices throughout the organization.¹⁵

5.1.6 Cybersecurity Risk    Destructive cyberattack such as the Sony Pictures incident is considered the most damaging cyberattack outside the norms of cyber practices and can be detrimental to the sustainability of public companies. Cybersecurity is becoming the top agenda of boards of directors and executives. While the United States has accused the government of North Korea of the Sony cyberattack, a group that identifies itself as the Guardians of Peace has claimed responsibility for the attack. The US government is considering a “proportional response” against those responsible for the Sony Cyberattack.¹⁶ Cyber hacking and cybersecurity breaches of information systems are becoming a reality for many businesses (e.g., Sony, Target, Morgan Chase, ZTE) and risk assessment and control demand significant IT investment and commitment by directors and offices to prevent occurrences. The purpose of ISO 27001 is to offer organizations guidance on keeping information assets secure by providing requirements for an information security management system (ISMS). Use of this family of standards will help organizations to manage the security of assets such as financial information, intellectual property, employee details or information entrusted to the entities by third parties.¹⁷ ISMS is a systematic approach to managing sensitive company information so that it remains protected. Furthermore, it helps identify risks to important information and puts appropriate controls in place to reduce the risk. It includes people, processes and IT systems by applying a risk management process. This standard is available to help any size organization in any sector.

The 2013 Global Information Security Survey conducted by Ernst & Young (EY) (2014) indicates four reasons for the increase in cyberattacks, and these are further explained in the following sections.¹⁸

5.1.6.1 Centralization of Operations and Information Systems    Centralization of operations and information system internet-based technologies to improve cost efficiency and effectiveness across the supply chain creates security risks, high exposure, and dependency on the internet, which provides opportunities for cyber hackers to engage in rewarding cyberattacks. Centralization across organization functions requires the use of sophisticated operations technology (OT) and information technology (IT) with related network infrastructure to connect geographically and operationally diverse functions. Thus, both OT and IT security and controls are becoming increasingly important for centralized systems to prevent hackers from penetrating the system and engaging in costly cyberattacks.

5.1.6.2 Government-Led/State-Sponsored Cyberattacks    The ever-increasing cyberwarfare activities of intelligence agencies and the military of sovereign states have made the practice of cyberwarfare a fair game at international level, as illustrated by the Stuxnet attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities. The alleged cyberattack on Sony Pictures by the government of North Korea is another example of government-led cyberattack. Many countries have developed sophisticated capabilities in launching major cyberattacks on IT infrastructures of other countries causing significant economic, social and political damage. Thus, there should be a treaty or protocol for all countries to mitigate any engagement in cyberwarfare detrimental to global society.

5.1.6.3 The Rise of Informal Activists    Activists with social, political and economic agendas find it justifiable to engage in cyberattacks to advance their own agendas at the cost of businesses and society.

5.1.6.4 Outdated Security Programs    Many OT and IT security programs are old, underdeveloped and obsolete, providing incentives and opportunities for cyber attackers to penetrate these programs and engage in costly cyber hacking activities. Security programs are designed to identify emerging cyber hacking or information security threats, but have no risk assessment or internal control procedures to immediately identify and respond to hacking or security breaches.

The risk associated with cyberattacks should be assessed and information security strategies developed to combat them. Management strategic cyber policies and procedures should include the following as a minimum to prevent, detect and deter cyberattacks:¹⁹

• Establishing a tone at the top making information security a board-level and senior management priority.
• Developing an integrated strategy to immediately respond to potential and real security threats.
• Assessing the risk of cyberattacks and security breaches.
• Establishing effective internal control activities relevant to the assessed threat risks to prevent and detect cyberattacks and security breaches.
• Using artificial intelligence, big data, data analytics and available advanced technologies to identify security breaches and cyberattacks and test the readiness of OT and IT programs to respond to threats.
• Assessing the current OT and IT systems and understanding their vulnerabilities and where a breach could likely occur.
• Understanding the applicable laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to cyberattacks and security breaches and how they are intended to protect organizations from cyberattacks and security breaches.
• Integrating control activities and response protocols for cyberattacks and security breaches to sustainable supply chain management.
• Establishing a committee consisting of the risk and compliance director/office, senior management, risk advisors, internal auditors and information system technicians to assess the existing OT and IT programs and their readiness and effectiveness in responding to potential cyberattacks and security beaches.
• Using artificial intelligence, big data and data analytics to identify and assess the threats and patterns of attacks.
• Conducting attack and penetration tests on an ongoing and continuous basis.

6. FUTURE TRENDS IN SUSTAINABILITY PERFORMANCE

Anecdotal evidence suggests that sustainability is paying off and that companies continue to gain from sustainability initiatives focusing on the achievement of long-term financial and non-financial key performance indicators.²⁰ The 2014 survey of investors conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) finds that about 80 percent of responding investors said they had considered GSEE sustainability issues in their investment decisions, when acting as voting proxies, and when making investment portfolio decisions in the past year. Among the top sustainability issues that were considered by investors are climate change, resource scarcity, CSR and good citizenship. Investors' primary concerns for considering sustainability issues, in order of importance, are risk reduction (73 percent), avoiding firms engaged in unethical conduct (55 percent), performance enhancement (52 percent), cost reduction (36 percent), attracting new capital (30 percent), improving capability to create value (30 percent), being responsive to interest groups (21 percent).²¹

Novartis has published annual Corporate Responsibility (CR) Performance reports since 2000 to demonstrate its commitment to being a leader in CSR. The 2013 Novartis CR performance report discloses that its CR emphasizes two key areas: a) expanding access to healthcare for a large population of people worldwide and b) doing business responsively. CSR at Novartis focuses on developing innovative products for underserved patients, employing CSR approaches to better serve low- and middle-income communities, operating to the best ethical standards and promoting environmental sustainability.²² The Novartis 2013 CR performance report highlights: (1) expanding access to healthcare (expanding social venture programs, serving billions of patients) and (2) doing business responsibly (responsible procurement, being included in the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index, being considered in the top 25 best places to work, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, being in the new UN 100 Index).²³ The 2013 CR report is prepared in compliance with the GRI G4 Guidelines with disclosure at the “Core” application level, and reflects the fact that the company complies with the GRI G4. The 2013 CR report also includes three other sustainability reports pertaining to the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP): Investor Request Response, the CDP Water Information Request Response, and the Conflict Minerals Report.²⁴ Exhibit 11.2 shows the Novartis CR report prepared in compliance with the G4 Guidelines.

City Development Limited (CDL) has issued standalone sustainability reports for several years, and its 2013 sustainability report details its commitment to long-term viability beyond an opportunity to make a positive impact on the environment and society, which reflects its principles of sustainability in creating enduring value for all stakeholders.²⁵ CDL's 2013 sustainability report provides detailed information related to financial, governance, social and environmental performance in Singapore in 2013, prepared in compliance with the GRI guidelines.²⁶ This 2013 sustainability report enables CDL to take the lead in disclosing both financial and non-financial opportunities, challenges and risks and to integrate CSR strategies across all business operations to achieve balanced triple-bottom-line performance in all activities pertaining to people, planet and profit.²⁷ Exhibit 11.3 presents a sample of public companies worldwide with high sustainability ranking.

7. FUTURE TRENDS IN SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING

Sustainability reporting has evolved from voluntarily disclosing some aspects of sustainability performance such as CSR in annual reports, to issuing standalone voluntary sustainability reports on the GSEE dimensions of sustainability performance, to integrating both financial and non-financial dimensions of sustainability performance into corporate reporting. The future of sustainability reporting will be either a mandatory standalone or an integrated report on all five EGSEE dimensions of sustainability performance along with the use of Extensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) in sustainability reporting. The use of XBRL-formatted reporting is an important step in applying XBRL to all dimensions of sustainability performance reporting. Several professional organizations are now developing sustainability taxonomies and related instances that can be effectively adopted by both providers and users of sustainability performance and assurance reports. Future sustainability reporting will be market-driven and/or regulatory-mandated integrated reports using XBRL on all dimensions of sustainability performance reporting by the application of several existing taxonomies for financial and non-financial information relevant to the dimensions of sustainable performance. Many professional organizations including GRI, IIRC and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) are in the process of developing of business sustainability information systems that capture and consolidate the details necessary to prepare reports externally as well as monitor and control internally, by using XBRL to facilitate the integration, consolidation and audit trail of both conventional financial and emerging non-financial information.

The SASB establishes and creates sustainability accounting standards which can be adapted to disclose material sustainability issues across 88 industries in 10 sectors, launching the process for mandatory filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), such as Forms 10-K and 20-F, through the first quarter of 2015.²⁹ The goal of the SASB is to create standards that enable peer-to-peer comparison between companies, which can be useful for investment decisions and capital allocation. In June 2011, the Global Initiative for Sustainability Ratings (GISR) developed an ESG ratings standard toward maximum harmonization with leading complementary standard-setters, most notably the Global Reporting Initiative, the International Integrated Reporting Committee, the Carbon Disclosure Project and the SASB.³⁰ Harmonizing SASB standards with existing disclosure standards avoids additional reporting costs for companies and aligns SASB's work with global corporate transparency efforts. The products of the SASB, GRI and IIRC can be used in complementary ways for the development of sustainability reports for investors and all stakeholders. The SASB provides standards for mandatory filings, whereas GRI and IIRC provide frameworks for voluntary reporting.

8. FUTURE TRENDS IN SUSTAINABILITY ASSURANCE

Sustainability reporting is mandatory in Europe and other jurisdictions. The reliability, objectivity, transparency and credibility of sustainability reports can be improved by providing assurance on these reports. Unlike audit reports on the economic dimension of sustainability performance in the context of audit reports on financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, assurance opinions on non-financial GSEE dimensions of sustainability information are neither standardized, regulated or licensed. Several professionals, including internal auditors, external auditors and other service providers, can offer assurance on non-financial sustainability information. International accounting firms have developed expertise in sustainability reporting and assurance, and they are well-equipped, and trained to provide sustainability assurance services on financial and non-financial dimensions of sustainability performance reports. A more standardized, integrated, and audited process is required to make sustainability reports on EGSEE performance comparable, commonly acceptable and relevant to all corporate stakeholders.

Accounting and auditing standards have long been established for financial reporting and auditing.³⁶ Standards also exist for measuring, recognizing, reporting and auditing GSEE sustainability performance, but these are new and few by comparison. These standards include GRI and the AA1000 standard issued in 2008 by AccountAbility (AA). There is an AA1000 assurance standard, as well as ISO standards and accounting profession standards for auditing sustainability metrics. The AICPA Assurance Executive Committee (ASEC) Sustainability Assurance and Advisory Task Force developed application guidance assurance services.³⁷ The AICPA issued Statement of Position (SOP) No. 13-1, which supersedes SOP No. 03-2, Attest Engagements on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Information, specifying how to apply the attestation standards for a review engagement to the specific subject matter of Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG) emissions information.³⁸ The Statement of Position (SOP 03-2) is an essential resource for examinations or reviews, and provides guidance on performing and reporting relating to a GHG emissions inventory or a baseline GHG inventory as well as a schedule or an assertion relating to information about a GHG emission reduction in connection with the recording of the reduction with a registry or a trade of that reduction or credit.³⁹ Statement of Position SOP 13-1 provides guidance on the types of analytics and inquiries that might be performed in a review engagement on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Information. Consequently, performing analytics and inquiries alone with respect to GHG emissions information might not yield sufficient evidence for the limited assurance conclusion to be formed (otherwise known as “negative assurance” in the United States).

Several existing assurance standards have been developed for both the financial and non-financial dimensions of sustainability preformation information. Sustainability assurance reports prepared based on the AICPA Assurance Framework and Statement of Position SOP 13-2 can be used to address the completeness, mapping, consistency or structure of EESG sustainability information and include planning, performing evidence-gathering procedures and reporting audit findings on all five EGSEE dimensions of sustainability performance in an integrated audit report or a separate audit report on individual EGSEE dimensions. The end-product of sustainability assurance engagement is the sustainability report reflecting the auditor's either positive or negative opinion in the context of either reasonable or limited assurance on sustainability performance reports.

In general, the extent of test procedures performed differs between levels of assurance. Depending on the standards applied, these levels of assurance may have been described differently but their implications are essentially similar. The highest level of assurance is described as a reasonable assurance (ISAE 3000), examination (AT 101) or audit (CICA 5025) of sustainability reports. The lower level of assurance can be described as limited (ISAE 3000), moderate (AT 101) or review (CICA 5025) level assurance.⁴⁰ A reasonable assurance engagement provides a positive opinion on whether the subject matter is, in all material respects, appropriately stated. A limited assurance engagement provides what is called a negative opinion—“nothing has come to our attention to cause us to believe or we are not aware of any modifications that are needed to be made that the subject matter is not, in all material aspects, appropriately stated.” A limited assurance engagement requires a lower level of work and consists primarily of enquiry and analytical procedures.

The content and format of the sustainability assurance report to be addressed to the entity's board of directors or management or intended user may vary and in general should include the following:⁴¹

1. Reference to sustainability information presented by management in the sustainability report and the year of reporting.
2. The assurance provider should use the criteria as a benchmark in assessing the effectiveness, efficiency, completeness, reliability and transparency of sustainability reports on all five dimensions of EGSEE performance.
3. Responsibilities of management and assurance providers: management is primarily responsible for the preparation, content, completeness and reliability of information in sustainability reports. The assurance provider is responsible for opinion or the assurance conclusion provided on the reports.
4. The scope of work done by the assurance provider should include the criteria used, tests of controls analytical procedures, inquiries and other evidence-gathering procedures performed to assess the risk of material misstatements in sustainability reports.
5. A statement that evidence gathered is used as a basis for reaching sustainability conclusions.

Assurance service providers should take the following steps:⁴²

1. Obtain an understanding of the organization's five EGSEE sustainability performance measures.
2. Obtain an understanding of the organization's current and prospective sustainability initiatives.
3. Documentation of discussion with management regarding all five EGSEE dimensions of sustainability performance.
4. Management certification reports on all five EGSEE dimensions of sustainability reports.
5. Consideration of sustainability factors of performance, disclosure and risk.
6. Perform analytical procedures designed to enhance the understanding of the relations among different components of EGSEE sustainability performance and identify areas of high risk that might affect the reliability of financial statements.
7. Conduct assessment of sustainability risk financial, strategic, reputation, operation and compliance risks.
8. Encourage communication among the audit engagement team members regarding the EGSEE sustainability dimensions that might affect the risks of material misstatement of financial statements.
9. Test the effectiveness of the internal control system used to collect, compile, process and disclose EGSEE sustainability performance.
10. Perform audit procedures to gather sufficient and appropriate evidence on reported sustainability information.
11. Interview the board of directors, management and other personnel charged with the preparation of EGSEE sustainability reports.
12. Confirm certain sustainability information with outside parties where applicable (donations, environmental initiatives).
13. Review important documents relevant to business sustainability mission, objectives, strategies, policies and procedures.
14. Decide on the type and level of assurance either limited or reasonable that can be given on each dimension of EGSEE sustainability performance.

Business organizations that produce a standalone sustainability report may have their report audited/reviewed by external assurance providers, in many cases an independent auditor. In 2014, CDL engaged Ernst & Young (EY) as its auditor to provide independent limited assurance on its 2013 sustainability report.⁴³ The CDL 2013 assurance covers information in its sustainability report that is related to the Subject Matter agreed upon as per the Assurance Statement. EY deemed the company to follow ISAE 3000 Assurance Engagement Other than Audits and Reviews of Historical Financial Information after reviewing the underlying systems and processes that support the Subject Matters in the Sustainability Report and presenting the scope of the work and conclusions.⁴⁴ Exhibit 11.5 presents the 2014 CDL Assurance Statement.

9. EMERGENCE OF BENEFIT CORPORATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES

Under corporate law and in accordance with the shareholder theory, it has been well-defined and commonly accepted that shareholders are the owners of the firm and that the board of directors and management have a fiduciary duty to act in their best interests.⁴⁵ The primary goal of corporations has been to maximize profit and to increase shareholder wealth. In the past decade, firms (over 15,000 globally) that voluntarily focus on profit-seeking and social mission have emerged as social enterprises or hybrid-corporations (HCs) in pursuing the five EGSEE dimensions of sustainability performance. Recently, “benefit corporations” (BCs) have been formed as legal entities by legislation in 21 states, including under the Delaware General Corporation Law, which, since August 1, 2013, has authorized the formation of public BCs.⁴⁶

Benefit corporations are legally for-profit entities incorporated as conventional corporations (CCs) under state law that have also chosen to adopt other ESG missions in their articles of incorporation. BCs are intended to minimize conflicts between corporations and society caused by differences between private and social costs and benefits as well as to align corporate goals with those of society under both the state corporate model and the benefit statute. Examples of conflicts between corporations and society relate to environmental issues (pollution, acid rain, global warming), wages paid by multinational corporations (MNCs) in poor countries, and child labor in developing countries. In pursuing their mission of protecting the interests of all stakeholders, BCs can raise companies' awareness of the social costs and benefits of their business activities. The major characteristics of BCs are: (1) a requirement that a BC must have a corporate purpose to create a material positive impact on society and the environment (2) an expansion of the duties of directors to require consideration of non-financial stakeholders as well as the financial interests of shareholders and (3) an obligation to report on their overall social and environmental performance using a comprehensive, credible, independent and transparent third-party standard.

Several benefits of BCs are the ability to: (1) gain the attention and market share of socially conscious investors (2) use the power of business and resources to solve social and environmental challenges (3) spur more trust in businesses by the public, shareholders, and potential employees and attract more customers to the company's brands and products (4) improve business, operational and investment efficacy and (5) assess, manage and minimize their strategic, operational, financial, reputational and compliance risks. These benefits can improve the financial and non-financial performance of BCs, which is reflected in their financial reporting quality, cost of capital, and firm value.

The BC structure is administered on a state-by-state basis by allowing the state's benefit corporation statutes to be placed within existing state corporation codes. The justification for BCs is that existing law does not hold boards of directors fiduciarily responsible to non-shareowner stakeholders by considering the impact of corporate decisions on other stakeholders, the environment or society at large. Thus, boards of directors of BCs are required to consider the impact of their decisions on specific corporate constituencies, including shareholders, employees, suppliers, the community, as well as on the local and global environment. In the past several years, 35 states, including New York, New Jersey, California, Louisiana, Maryland, Vermont, Virginia, South Carolina and Hawaii have enacted laws allowing the creation of BCs for businesses that wish to simultaneously pursue profit and benefit society (Hiller, 2013). Since August 1, 2013, the Delaware General Corporation Law has authorized the formation of public benefit corporations. This law: (1) allows entrepreneurs and investors to create for-profit Delaware corporations that are charged with promoting public benefits (2) modifies the fiduciary duties of directors of BCs by requiring them to balance public benefits with the economic interests of shareholders and (3) requires BCs to report to their shareholders with respect to the advancement of public benefits and/or other benefits to non-shareholders.

Other requirements are: (1) the certificate of incorporation of a BC must identify one or more specific public benefits to be promoted (2) the board of directors of a BC has a fiduciary duty to establish a right balance between shareholders' economic interests, the specific public benefits listed in the company's certificate of incorporation, and the best interests of those materially affected by the corporation's conduct (3) BCs must provide a biennial report to their shareholders disclosing the promotion of their specific public benefits and the best interests of those materially affected by their conduct (4) the board of directors of a BC does not have a fiduciary duty to any non-stockholder and (5) CCs can opt into BC status by merger or charter amendment with approval of 90 percent of the outstanding shares of each class of stock.

In summary, BCs are established to take initiatives to advance social good beyond their own interests in compliance with applicable regulations. BCs are intended to maximize positive impacts, minimize negative effects on and harm to society and environment and create positive impacts on the community, environment, employees, customers and suppliers. The true measure of success for BCs should be determined not only by reported earnings, but also by their governance, social responsibility, ethical behavior and environmental initiatives. BCs have received considerable attention from policymakers, regulators and the business investment community during the past decade and are expected to remain the main theme of the 21st century. Formation of BCs is an appropriate mechanism for public companies to move toward sustainability by creating value for shareholders while protecting interests of other stakeholders.

10. EMERGENCE OF PROFIT-WITH-PURPOSE COMPANIES AND THE SHARED VALUE CONCEPT

Public companies are being criticized for primarily focusing on profit maximization and thus shareholder value creation with minimal attention to the impacts of their operations on society and the environment.⁴⁷ As corporate sustainability is gaining more attention and being integrated into the business culture and model, there has been a shift from the creation of shareholder value to the development of “sustainable shared value creation” to protect interests of all stakeholders.⁴⁸ The concept of shared value is defined as “policies and practices that enhance the competitiveness of a company while simultaneously advancing the economic and social conditions in the communities in which it operates.”⁴⁹ Under the shared value creation concept, management focuses on the continuous performance improvement of business operations in generating long-term value while maximizing the positive impacts of operations on society and the environment by measuring sustainable performance in terms of both ESP and GSEE. Thus, corporate objectives have advanced from profit maximization to increasing shareholder wealth and now to creating shared value for all stakeholders.

Business sustainability requires business organizations to expand their mission to not only generate profit and create shareholder value but also ensure shared value for all stakeholders. The concept of shared value challenges the way we think about profits, philanthropy, sustainability and development. Sustainable shared value creation enables business organizations to integrate financial ESP with non-financial ESG into business culture and corporate environment. Porter and Kramer (2011, p. 2) define the concept of shared value as “policies and operating practices that enhance the competitiveness of a company while simultaneously advancing the economic and social conditions in the communities in which it operates.” This definition suggests that shared value initiatives can be created in three ways:

1. producing products and services that increase shareholder wealth and meet societal needs including improved nutrition, education, health and general wellbeing;
2. redefining productivity in the supply chain by investing in training and resources to create high-quality suppliers and improve ESP and GSEE sustainability performance; and
3. developing material indicator taxonomies to effectively measure revenue, costs and value of organizations.

Following GRI G4 performance indicators, corporations frequently discuss goals around ESG performance; the sourcing of raw materials and inputs for production; product innovations that lead to positive environmental, health or society impacts; employee safety, training and diversity; compliance with ethical principles and human rights standards; and community initiatives in the areas of health and wellbeing, education, employment and economic empowerment.

11. CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN BUSINESS SUSTAINABILITY IN ASIA

Countries in Asia have their own sustainability programs and initiatives that are shaped by their individual cultural, political, economic and legal infrastructures. Business sustainability has made steady progress in Asia. The corporate environment, including business sustainability in Asia, has evolved in the past several decades through the transformation of the socialist system into a market economy and legal system. To promote market-based corporate financing, many countries in Asia have established stock exchange markets. Exhibit 11.6 presents best practices of sustainability in Asia. These best practices indicate the challenges and opportunities in business sustainability in the region.

The corporate governance system including sustainability programs of a country and its internal and external mechanisms are determined by a number of interrelated factors, including political infrastructure, cultural norms, legal system, ownership structures, market environments, level of economic development, CSR activities and ethical standards. CSR in Southeast Asia is undergoing a period of dynamic evolution. Many ambitious companies strive to become international players in the globalized world. This means adhering to global standards in all aspects of operations while maintaining loyal to traditions and unique cultures. Asian values including reciprocity, harmony with nature and surroundings and respect for others are a cultural framework that is highly relevant to sustainability.

12. PLANNING FOR BUSINESS SUSTAINABILITY

To maintain sustainability in this global competitive business environment, companies should employ integrated thinking, decisions, actions and performance by focusing on the consequences of their integrated sustainability performance to create value for all stakeholders. Business organizations must move toward an integrated reporting model that presents forward-looking financial and non-financial information about all five EGSEE dimensions of sustainability performance. The following subsections present where we go from here in improving, advancing and promoting business sustainability that creates shared value for all stakeholders.

13. MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTANTS' ROLE IN SUSTAINABILITY

Corporations worldwide are now recognizing the importance of both financial and non-financial performance and their link to profitability and social goals. Justifications for improved sustainability are: enhancing financial sustainability, moral obligation, maintaining a good reputation, ensuring CSR, license to operate and creating value for all stakeholders. In a shared value approach, corporations identify potential sustainability concerns and integrate them into their strategic planning. There are many reasons why a company should focus on sustainability such as: pressure from the labor movement, development of moral values and social standards, development of business education and change in public opinion about the role of business. Companies which are, or aspire to be, leaders in sustainability are challenged by rising public expectations, increasing innovation, continuous quality improvement and heightened social and environmental problems.

Cost management and performance management practices have continued to receive considerable attention in management and financial accounting and the business community. Cost management is defined in the context of enterprise sustainability as a process of planning and controlling the costs of products and services to promote maximum utilization of scarce resources in generating revenue and delivering high-quality and environmentally safe products and services to customers. Performance management, in the context of sustainability, consists of all business activities that generate financial ESP and non-financial ESG sustainability performance to maximize firm value and create shared value for all stakeholders.

Globalization created incentives and opportunities for MNCs and their stakeholders and executives to influence the sustainability initiatives and strategies of headquarters as well as their global subsidiaries. MNCs can choose from a variety of sustainability initiatives in relation to scope, extent, and type of strategy, with focus on different issues, functions, areas and stakeholders. Management should develop and maintain proper sustainability programs that provide a common framework for the integration of sustainability to their strategies and operations in accordance with the following:

• Integration of sustainability development and programs into the business and investment analysis and decision-making process.
• Incorporation of all five EGSEE dimensions of sustainability performance into business and investment policies, activities and practices.
• Promotion of appropriate reporting of sustainability performance.
• Collaboration among all stakeholders to enhance the effectiveness of implementing sustainability programs.
• Promotion of product innovation and quality, customer retention and attraction, employee satisfaction and productivity through sustainability programs.

Several recent reports released by Chartered Global Management Accountants (CGMA) suggest that companies underutilized the knowledge and skills of their management accountants in advancing sustainability programs and developments and in reporting the impacts of environmental, social, ethical and governance factors on financial performance. These reports suggest the following ways in which management accountants can assist their organizations in achieving sustainability performance and success:

1. Identify non-financial sustainability initiatives including the environmental and social trends that will affect the company's ability to create stakeholder value over time.
2. Link business sustainability challenges to the company's strategy, business model, operations and performance.
3. Assess and explain the impact of these sustainability issues, including challenges and concerns.
4. Develop both financial and non-financial KPIs that support achievement of sustainability strategic goals.
5. Apply management accounting tools and techniques including balanced scorecards, scenario planning of natural resource availability, data analytics, lifecycle costing and carbon foot-printing to integrate sustainability into the decision-making process.
6. Produce integrated/sustainability reports that include data on sustainability impacts in all business decisions including supply chains, budgeting and pricing decisions, cost analysis, investment appraisals and strategic planning.
7. Develop a sustainability reporting strategy that integrates all five dimensions of sustainability performance into strategic planning, decisions and operations.⁶⁶

A business organization's success in effective achievement of all five EGSEE dimensions of sustainability performance demands commitment by the board of directors and top executives in effectively coordinating all sustainability strategies and activities and successfully implementing these strategies. There is an urgent need for the establishment of the position of chief sustainability officer (CSO) in the C-suite executives of business organizations.

14. GLOBAL COLLABORATION AND LEADERSHIP FOR SUSTAINABILITY

The 2015 research conducted by MIT Sloan Management Review, the Boston Consulting Group and the United Nations Global Compact indicates that an increasing number of companies are collaborating with their suppliers, industry alliances, peers and even competitors and government and non-government entities to become more sustainable.⁶⁷ This suggests that there is a need for integrated efforts by all stakeholders focused on achieving the five EGSEE dimensions of sustainability performance, addressing sustainability challenges and creating new product and market opportunities. The report suggests that sustainability has and will continue to march to the center of business as evidenced by the following:

1. 39 percent of responding companies are publicly reporting their sustainability efforts and this is expected to increase by 15 percent in the next four years;
2. the number of companies that utilize financial and non-financial sustainability KPIs and effective governance structures toward sustainability has increased by 6 percent in the past four years;
3. the number of companies that consider sustainability as a top management agenda item has increased substantially to 65 percent in 2014 compared to 46 percent in 2010; and
4. the number of companies with no focus on sustainability has significantly decreased in the past four years.⁶⁸

The study also looked at board engagement as a driver of sustainability success. Overall, 86 percent of respondents believe that the board of directors should play a strong role in driving their company's sustainability efforts. But only 42 percent of respondents see their boards as “moderately or more” engaged with the company's sustainability agenda. These disconnects affect performance, which is illustrated by the fact that in companies whose boards are perceived as active supporters, 67 percent of respondents rate collaborations as very or quite successful. In companies whose boards are not engaged, the reported rate of success is less than half that. The report also suggests that the type and extent of collaboration may vary among companies, but at the minimum can include:⁶⁹

1. Developing sustainability standards and promoting best practices of business sustainability.
2. Sharing information about best practices of sustainability to foster discoveries or communicate externally about sustainability performance.
3. Empowering all stakeholders to engage in business sustainability to create value.
4. Sharing in investments to save costs or reduce risks and create value.

15. CONCLUSIONS

In the past two decade, investors and creditors have shown increasing interest in non-financial sustainability information that impacts long-term viability and the wellbeing of the company in creating shareholder value. With the advent of social media and new technological developments, investors and creditors can easily obtain the necessary information they need from different sources beyond the traditional financial reporting. The number of business organizations providing sustainability information regarding their financial and non-financial EGSEE performance is on the rise and might be an indication that the traditional financial reporting model should be more inclusive of relevant non-financial sustainability information disclosures. Business sustainability performance reporting in terms of integrated reporting has extended the type and amount of financial and non-financial information that business organizations provide to their stakeholders regarding their EGSEE sustainability.

Integrated reporting provides the foundation for the communication of both financial and non-financial information to stakeholders. The content, format and method of disseminating sustainability reporting have been evolving and the optimal disclosure of sustainability information varies across countries and companies. However, a balance between economic sustainability performance and other GSEE dimensions of sustainability performance can lead to competitive advantage, as stakeholders value sustainability disclosures. Reliable and useful sustainability information on all five EGSEE dimensions of sustainability performance enables all stakeholders to make sound decisions regarding operating, financing, and investment activities. The use of the XBRL platform and continuous auditing improves the relevance and credibility of sustainability reports. It is expected that sustainability performance reporting and assurance will continue to make progress in Asia.

16. CHAPTER TAKEAWAY

1. Sustainability should be integrated into day-to-day management decision processes and particularly into operational, financing and capital investment decisions as well as supply chain management.
2. Identify all stakeholders who are affected and who will affect your business sustainability and its success.
3. There are primary stakeholders and secondary stakeholders. Primary stakeholders are visible and are able to influence corporate decisions whereas secondary stakeholders are disconnected from the company due to lack of interest and remoteness. Typical stakeholders include shareholders, creditors, customers, suppliers, employees, regulators, the environment and the community.
4. Achievement of successful business sustainability performance requires the firm commitment of the board of directors and executives to an integrated and comprehensive approach in promoting sustainability.
5. Make business sustainability, integrated thinking and integrated reporting key components of your business strategy and strategic decisions.
6. Director and executive commitment to integrated thinking, performance and reporting is vital in creating sustainable value for all stakeholders.
7. A balance between the five dimensions of sustainability performance can lead to competitive advantage and long-term and enduring value creation for all stakeholders.
8. Sustainability reporting should reflect business organizations' sustainability performance in all five dimensions of economic, governance, social, ethical and environmental (EGSEE) activities.
9. External assurance on sustainability reports improves their reliability, credibility and effectiveness in achieving the organizational objectives of creating value for all stakeholders.
10. Tone-at-the-top commitment to sustainability leadership requires organizations to define their sustainability mission, strategic objectives and actions, and integrate their processes to promote sustainability throughout the organization and its link to sustainable financial performance.
11. Sustainability performance in all five EGSEE dimensions is an important driver for building a corporate citizenship of trust, and retaining talented employees, satisfied customers and rewarded shareholders.
12. Business sustainability development enables organizations to integrate sustainability principles with everyday business operations, processes and performance.
13. The success and effectiveness of business sustainability is determined by integrating sustainability into all facets of business operations, measurements, performance reporting and assurance.