Identificación del Agente Biológico y de las Variables Determinantes del Nivel

Despite these positive views, the following shortcomings of the GRI guidelines have been identified:

 The European developed GRI guideline does not deal with factors which are unique to the South African context, such as rural poverty, development and health care issues (Antoni & Hurt 2006:260; English & Schooley 2014:31). However, in response to this criticism, the concept of materiality must be applied to ensure that factors which are

important in the context of the reporting entity are reported on (English & Schooley 2014:31).

 It has also been stated that there is a potential inability of the GRI guideline in meeting the needs of the diverse public sector, as the GRI guidelines and the public sector supplement are too generic. (Guthrie & Farneti 2008:365; Williams 2011:3). This view is shared by Jones (2010:14) who identifies that the public and private sectors are treated in the same manner with regards to sustainability reporting guideline, despite their vast differences. In addition, the GRI public sector supplement seems to be focused on policy based entities and not entities which deliver goods and services (Farneti & Guthrie 2009:96). The opinion of an interviewee who prepared the sustainability report for an Australian public entity was that the GRI Sector Supplement for Public Agencies focused primarily on policy and the effectiveness of these policies, whereas commercial entities in the public sector, such as state-owned enterprises, were not catered for (Farneti & Guthrie 2009:96).

 The difficulty in applying the GRI guideline has been identified as a challenge faced in sustainability reporting. One reason for this is the difficulty in collecting all the information required for the indicators set out in the GRI guideline. (Farneti & Guthrie 2009:96; Bellringer et al. 2011:134).

 Sustainability reports, as promoted by the GRI guideline, have been criticised for being disconnected from financial reports. It is claimed that sustainability reports fail at times to make the link between sustainability issues and the reporting entity’s core strategy which would generally comprise of creating wealth for its shareholders through its operations. The financial statements and the remainder of the report containing social and environmental disclosures are said to be prepared in a disjointed manner. Therefore, the report is said to be disconnected from the economic realities of the reporting entity (Makiwane & Padia 2013:423; Marx & Mohammadali-Haji 2014:235). The GRI guideline has been criticised for encouraging stand-alone sustainability reports (Jones 2010:14) rather than an integrated report. This may further perpetuate the disconnect in information being reported resulting in stakeholders finding it challenging to comprehend the links between the different economic, social and environmental impacts.

future of the reporting entity. This could be problematic because the concept of sustainability implies the ability to sustain into the future, not the past. (Marx & Mohammadali-Haji 2014:235; Steyn 2014b:485).

 GRI promoted sustainability reporting has been criticised for not having an impact on the way in which business is being done (De Villiers et al. 2014:1044).

 The reports prepared using the GRI guideline are criticised for being too long and complex as it covers a broad range of economic, social and environmental indicators (De Villiers et al. 2014:1042; English & Schooley 2014:33). This has resulted in sustainability reports being overloaded with information and being too difficult for stakeholders to understand.

In a plight to address this disconnect between the different aspects of the GRI guideline, the Prince’s Accounting for Sustainability Project was established in 2004 and a guideline called “connected reporting” was developed (English & Schooley 2014:33; Steyn 2014b:480). Although sustainability reporting is presently perceived to be the most relevant format for non- financial reporting, the expectation is that sustainability reporting will lose its relevance in the future and be replaced with integrated reporting. (English & Schooley 2014:33).

2.4.3 Integrated Reporting

King III defines integrated reporting as “a holistic and integrated representation of the company’s performance in terms of both its finances and its sustainability” (Abeysekera 2013:229). The International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) defines integrated reporting as that which “brings together the material information about an organisation’s strategy, governance, performance and prospects, and reflects the commercial, social and environmental context within which it operates. It provides a clear and concise representation of how an organisation demonstrates stewardship and how it creates value, now and in the future. Integrated reporting combines the most material elements of information currently reported in separate reporting strands (financial, management commentary, governance and remuneration, and sustainability) in a coherent whole, and importantly shows the connectivity between them; and explains how they affect the ability of an organisation to create and sustain value in the short, medium and long term”. (IIRC 2011:6; Steyn 2014b:480).

The first integrated reporting framework was developed in South Africa in May 2010, before the formation of the IIRC (Cheng, Green, Conradie, Konishi & Romi 2014 IN De Villiers et

al. 2014:1043; Marx & Mohammadali-Haji 2014:236) and aimed to depict a more holistic picture of an entity’s performance (De Villiers et al. 2014:1043). The providing of quality information is to encourage the efficient and productive allocation of capital. This could be explained simply as investors making informed socially responsible investment decisions regarding the investment of their resources. Without quality information, there may be difficulty experienced in making these decisions. The integrated report also aims to promote integrated thinking when making decisions and enhance the accountability of entities to their stakeholders, as entities need to be held accountable for their social and environmental impacts. (Abeysekera 2013:229; The International Integrated Reporting Framework (IR) 2013:2). IIRC published its first framework for integrated reporting in 2013. JSE listed entities were required to produce integrated reports using the South African framework, which has a greater focus on broader social, economic and environmental issues and has a more stakeholder inclusive approach than the IIRC integrated reporting framework. The preparation of integrated reports is not mandatory in any other country, except South Africa. (Abeysekera 2013:229; De Villiers et al. 2014:1050; Steyn 2014b:479). As a result of this, South African listed companies are deemed global leaders in the move toward integrated reporting (Steyn 2014b:479).

The essence of integrated reporting is that value cannot be created by an entity on its own as it is dependent on the external environment and relationships with stakeholders as well as various resources. Value creation therefore is not only a reflection of the value which an entity creates for itself, but is also based on the value which an entity creates for others. Any entity and its value creation-ability is dependent on various capitals for its success. (IR 2013:11-12).