J. For. Sci., 2014, 60(6):226-235 | DOI: 10.17221/33/2014-JFS

Specifics in the introduction of sustainability reporting by companies in the forestry sectorOriginal Paper

M. Ševčík, M. Hájek, A. Mikulková
Faculty of Forestry and Wood S ciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

Sustainability reporting is constantly paid attention by companies for its economic, environmental and social benefits. It supports making use of the wide potential for further development of enterprises and society. Individual sectors use types of indicators that correspond to their specifics. It is also the case of the forestry sector, which is especially characterized by a number of non-market outputs. However, we can find also other specific indicators that are relevant to forest management. The paper proposes indicators for sustainability reporting, which are not part of usual methodologies. These indicators will contribute not only to the formal preparation of sustainability reporting, but so that its benefits would be of significant influence on the development of forest enterprises and the forestry sector using its potential in all areas.

Keywords: ecosystem services; forest services; nonmarket outputs; forest enterprise; sustainable indicators

Published: June 30, 2014  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Ševčík M, Hájek M, Mikulková A. Specifics in the introduction of sustainability reporting by companies in the forestry sector. J. For. Sci. 2014;60(6):226-235. doi: 10.17221/33/2014-JFS.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Ahmed S.U., Islam M., Mahtab H., Hasan I. (2014): Institutional investment and corporate social performance: linkage towards sustainable development. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21: 1-13. Go to original source...
    2. Albizu-Urionabarrenetxea P.M., Tolosana-Esteban E., Roman-Jordan E. (2013): Safety and health in forest harvesting operations. Diagnosis and preventive actions. A review. Forest Systems, 22: 292-400. Go to original source...
    3. Bios G., Goio I. (2009): National green accounting: an application to forests in the autonomous province of Trento (Italy). Austrian Journal of Forest Science, 126: 101-117.
    4. Brown H.S., Jong M., Lessidrenska T. (2007): The rise of the global reporting initiative (GRI) as a case of institutional entrepreneurship. Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative Working Paper, 36: 48-63.
    5. Depro B.M., Murray B.C., Alig R.L., Shanks A. (2008): Public land, timber harvests, and climate mitigation: quantifying carbon sequestration potential on U.S. public timberlands. Forest Ecology and Management, 255: 1122-1134. Go to original source...
    6. Duncker P.S., Raulund-Rasmussen K., Gundersen P., Katzensteiner K., de Jong J., Ravn H.P., Smith M., Eckmullner O., Spiecker H. (2012): How forest management affects ecosystem services, including timber production and economic return: synergies and trade-offs. Ecology and Society, 17: 102-119. Go to original source...
    7. Frias-Aceituno J.V., Rodriguez-Ariza L., GarciaSanchez I.M. (2014): Explanatory factors of integrated sustainability and financial reporting. Business Strategy and the Environment, 23: 56-72. Go to original source...
    8. Glura J. (2007): Społeczne funkcje lasu jako potencjalne źródło przychodów w leśnictwie. [Social forest functions as potential source of income in forestry.] In: Quo Vadis Forestry? Materiały Miedzynarodowej Konferencji Sekocin Stary, Polska. Sękocin Stary, 29.-30. June 2006. Sękocin Stary, IBL: 338-344.
    9. GRI (2013a): Sustainability Topics for Sectors: What Do Stakeholders Want to Know. Boston, GRI Research and Development Series: 155.
    10. GRI (2013b): The sustainability Content of Integrated Reports - a Survey of Pioneers. Boston, GRI Research and Development Series: 57.
    11. GRI (2013c): Reporting Principles and Standard Disclosures. G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Boston, GRI Research and Development Series: 94.
    12. Grifin J., Mahon J. (1997): The corporate social performance and the corporate financial performance debate. Bussiness and Society, 36: 5-31. Go to original source...
    13. Hahn R., Kühnen, M. (2013): Review. Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 59: 5-21. Go to original source...
    14. Hájek M. (2013): Problematika externalit při využití environmentálního manažerského účetnictví v lesním hospodářství. [The issue of externalities and the use of environmental management accounting in forestry.] Zprávy lesnického výzkumu, 58: 85-89.
    15. Hájek M., Pulkrab K., Hyršlová J. (2012): Forestry externalities in the environmental management accounting system. Problems of Management in the 21st Century, 5: 280-285. Go to original source...
    16. Hector D.C., Christensen C.B., Petrie J. (2014): Sustainability and sustainable development: philosophical distinctions and practical implications. Environmental Values, 23: 7-28. Go to original source...
    17. Hillman J., Keim G.D. (2001): Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: what's the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22: 125-139. Go to original source...
    18. Jing-Cheng H., Guo-He H., Hua Z., Zhong L. (2013): Optimal land use management for soil erosion control by using an interval-parameter fuzzy two-stage stochastic programming approach. Environmental Management, 52: 621-638. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    19. Kabir M.E., Webb E.L. (2005): Productivity and suitability analysis of social forestry woodlot species in Dhaka Forest Division, Bangladesh. Forest Ecology and Management, 212: 243-252. Go to original source...
    20. Kaňok F. (2007): Ekonomika harvestorů u přímo řízených lesních závodů LČR. [Economy of harvestors in forest establishments directly managed by LČR.] In: Dulík R., Kupčák V. (eds): Ekonomické aspekty integrovaného lesního hospodářství. [Economics Aspects of Integrated Forest Management.] Brno, Mendelova lesnická a zemědělská univerzita v Brně: 51-54.
    21. Kašparová K., Kunz V. (2013): Moderní přístupy ke společenské odpovědnosti firem a CSR reportování [Modern Approaches to Social Responsibilites of Corporates and CSR Reporting.] Praha, Grada: 160.
    22. Klemperer W.D. (1996): Forest Resource Economics and Finance. Blacksburg, McGraw-Hill Science: 551.
    23. Klemperer W.D. (2003): Forest Resource Economics and Finance. Blacksburg, McGraw-Hill Science: 551.
    24. Kocmanová A., Hřebíček J. (2013): Měření podnikové výkonnosti. [Measuring of Corporate Performance.] Brno, Littera: 252.
    25. Kojola S., Ahtikoski A., Hökkä H., Penttila T. (2013): Profitability of alternative management regimes in Scots pine stands on drained peatlands. European Journal of Forest Research, 131: 413-426. Go to original source...
    26. Kovalčík M., Sarvašová Z., Schwarz M., Moravčík M., Oravec M., Lásková J., Tutka J. (2012): Financial and socio-economic impacts of nature conservation on forestry in Slovakia. Journal of Forest Science, 58: 425-435. Go to original source...
    27. KPMG (2013): The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2013. Available at http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/corporate-responsibility/Documents/kpmg-survey-ofcorporate-responsibility-reporting-2013.pdf (accessed January 10, 2014).
    28. Krieger D. (2001): Economic Value of forest Exosystem Services: A review. Washington, DC, The Wilderness Society: 40.
    29. Kwanhatai J., Phapruke U., Kesinee M. (2012): Environmental management accounting practices and firm value: an empirical investigation of ISO 14000 firms in Thailand. Review of Business Research, 12: 53-64
    30. Lien G., Stordal S., Braadsen S. (2007) Technical efficiency in timber production and effects of other income sources. Small-scale Forestry, 6: 65-78. Go to original source...
    31. Marimon F., Mar Alonso-Almeida M., Pilar R.M., Cortez K.A. (2012): The worldwide diffusion of the global reporting initiative: what is the point? Journal of Cleaner Production, 33: 132-144. Go to original source...
    32. Maroto C., Segura M., Ginestar C., Uriol J. (2013): Sustainable forest management in a mediterranean region: social preferences. Forest Systems, 22: 546-558. Go to original source...
    33. Milne M.J., Gray R. (2013): W(h)ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the global forest reporting initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 118: 13-29. Go to original source...
    34. Mrosek T., Balsilllie D. (2000): Development and Testing of a Criteria and Indicators System for Sustainable Forest Management at the Forest Management Unit Level: Case Study at the Haliburton Forest & Wild Life Reserve Ltd., Ontario Canada. In: Criteria and Indicators for Suitanable Forest Management at the Forest Management Unit Level. Nancy, 21.-25. March 2000. Joensuu, European Forest Institute: 133-149.
    35. Nalle D.J., Montgomery C.A., Arthur J.L., Polasky S., Schumaker N.H. (2004): Modeling joint production of wildlife and timber. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management: 48: 997-1117. Go to original source...
    36. Papenfuss U. (2014): How (should) public authorities report on state-owned enterprises for financial sustainability and cutback management - a new quality model. Public Money and Management, 34: 115-122 Go to original source...
    37. PEFC (2014): PEFC certification. Available at http://www.pefc.cz/pefc-certifikace.pdf (accessed February 13, 2014).
    38. Prabhur R., Coffer C., Shepper G.B. (1998): Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management: New Findings from CIFOR. London, ODI: 15.
    39. Ramos T.B., Cecílioa T., Dougla C.H. Caeiro S. (2013): Corporate sustainability reporting and the relations with evaluation and management frameworks: the Portuguese case. Journal of Cleaner Production, 52: 317-328. Go to original source...
    40. Riedl M., Šišák L. (2013): Analysis of the perceived condition of forest in the Czech Republic. Journal of Forest Science, 59: 514-519. Go to original source...
    41. Roman R., Haybor S., Agle B. (1999): The relation between social and financial performance. Bussiness and Society, 38: 109-125. Go to original source...
    42. Rönnqvist M. (2003): Optimization in forestry. Mathematical Pogramming, 97: 267-284. Go to original source...
    43. Schmithüssen F. (2007): Multifunctional forestry practices as a land use strategy to meet increasing private and public demands in modern societies. Journal of Forest Science, 53: 290-298. Go to original source...
    44. Šišák L. (2013a): Diferencované oceňování společenské sociálně-ekonomické významnosti funkcí lesa podle vztahu k trhu a jeho aplikace v rámci ČR. [Differentiated valuation of socio-economic importace of forest services by their relationships to the market and its implementation in the Czech Republic.] Zprávy lesnického výzkumu, 58: 50-57.
    45. Šišák L. (2013b): Differentiated valuation of forest services by their relationships to the market and its implementation in the Czech Republic. In: Socio-economic Analyses of Sustainable Forest Management. Proceedings of the International Symposium. Prague, 15.-17. May 2013. Prague, IUFRO and Czech University of Life Sciences Prague: 116-122.
    46. Toppinen A., Li N., Tuppura A., Xiong X. (2012): Corporate responsibility and strategic groups in the forest-based industry: exploratory analysis based on the global reporting initiative (GRI) framework. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 19: 191-205. Go to original source...
    47. Toppinen A., Korhonen-Kurki K. (2013): Global reporting initiative and social impact in managing corporate responsibility: a case study of three multinationals in the forest industry. Business Ethics: A European Review, 22: 202-217. Go to original source...
    48. Ventrubová K., Dvořák P. (2012): Legal framework for payments for forest ecosystem services in the Czech Republic. Journal of Forest Science, 58: 131-136. Go to original source...
    49. Vincent R., Binkley C. (1993): Efficent multiple-use forestry may raguire land-use specialization. Land Economics, 69: 370-376. Go to original source...
    50. Webb A.A. (2011) Can timber and water resources be sustainably co-developed in south-eastern New South Wales, Australia? Environment, Development and Sustainability, 14: 233-252. Go to original source...
    51. Willis A. (2003): The role of the global reporting initiative's sustainability reporting guidelines in the social screening of investments. Journal of Business Ethics, 43: 233-237. Go to original source...
    52. Zhang D., Pearse P.H. (2011): Forest Economics. Město, UBC Press: 390. Go to original source...
    53. Zhang Y. (2005): Multiple-use forestry vs. forestland-use specialization revisited. Forest Policy and Economics, 7: 143-156. Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content