Energy use of Wesfarmers Resources

Question: Describe about the Energy use of Wesfarmers Resources. Answer: Introduction The objective of the paper is to conduct the sustainability performance analysis of Wesfarmers Resources Company in part A of the report. Wesfarmer Resources Limited serves as an Australian conglomerate that has its headquarter in Perth, Western Australia along with interests predominantly with New Zealand and Australian retail (Carroll and Buchholtz, 2014). The company also has its business operations in chemicals, coal mining, fertilizers along with industrial, and safety products. Wesfarmers Resources has a leading and sustainable business as a metallurgical coal manufacturer and supplier of thermal coal in domestic generation of power. In part, B, Fuji Xerox Limited Companys sustainability report comparison in two nations will also be conducted. Fuji Xerox and its associated affiliated companies believe that corporate social responsibility must be vital to offer superior consumer services (Frias?Aceituno et al. 2013). The differences in the guidelines used for its Japan and Australian reports will be evaluated for the years 2014 and 2015. Part C of the paper will consider gaining conclusion and recommendations based on the sustainability report of Wesfarmer Resources Company and Fuji Xerox. Finally, part D will present a reflective journal on the personal development that has been gained through the completion of sustainability report analysis of West farmer Resources Company and Fuji Xerox. Part A 1. Assessment and comparison of the sustainability reports of Wesfarmers of 2014 and 2015 with respect to the G4 GRI guidelines: According to the viewpoint of the management of Wesfarmers, only improving the financial performance of the organization is not sufficient to deliver maximum value to the shareholders. Instead, the five key sustainability areas of reporting are essential in order to provide maximum returns to the shareholders. In the words of Alonso?Almeida, Llach and Marion (2014), the sustainability areas comprise of people, community support, environment, carbon and energy, economic contribution and governance. In order to compare the sustainability reporting performance of Wesfarmers, the following aspects are taken into consideration in relation to the G4 GRI guidelines: Economic aspect: Wesfarmers Resources provides a number of necessary services to its staffs and families in the local communities of its operations. This is achieved through open communication and continual engagement to extend support to these communities. As a result, it has positive influence on the lives of the people living in the local communities. In this regard, Bebbington, Unerman and O'Dwyer (2014) cited that extension of support to the local communities helps in contributing to the development of a nation and the economy as a whole. The most notable undertaking of Wesfarmers Resources in 2014, the company has undertaken a new plan to contribute to the economy of Australia by supporting the local communities. It has been named as Currish, which involves allocation of community investment funds to encourage the community organizations for future planning. This could be made through application of funds and in-kind support via grants program. Curragh has developed a committee comprising of employees, who possess adequate knowledge about the needs of the local communities. The financial support that has been provided through this program amounts to $46,900 to 22 local community organization between the period of January-June in 2014 (Wesresources.com.au 2016). The organizations, which have been highly benefitted from this program, include Royal Flying Doctors Service and Riding for the Disabled Backwater and Black water PCYC. However, in 2015, no notable program has been initiated; instead, the organization has continued with its Curragh program to provide employment opportunities to the indigenous woman. Therefore, the contribution to the economy of Australia has been slowed down in 2015 in contrast to 2014. As per the category 6 of the GRI G4 guidelines, an organization needs to disclose the generated economic value comprising of revenues, employee compensation and other community investments. In addition, the guidelines need to cover detailed benefit plan obligations from the investment made (Globalreporting.org 2016). In this case, Wesfarmers Resources has made all the necessary disclosures in order to comply with the GRI G4 guidelines. Figure 1: Wesfarmers Resources Contribution to the local communities (Source: Wesresources.com.au 2016) Environmental aspect: Wesfarmers Resources acknowledge the potential risks arising out of climate change and take actions for minimizing the possible influence on operations due to increased rainfall and flooding. Therefore, the organization has concentrated on minimizing greenhouse gas efficiency through improved energy efficiency process. In the year 2014, the organization has bought materials that emit less chemicals and hazardous substances in order to maintain the environmental sustainability. In this context, Boyd and Golden (2016) stated that use of sustainable resources helps in minimizing the negative impact on the community along with ensuring sustainable flow of operations. In addition, it has been observed that the Curragh mine of Wesfarmers Resources utilizes mobile lighting to carry out its night operations in 2014. Such units have been extremely expensive to run, since they have high emissions and difficulties in maintaining the same (Eccles et al. 2012). In order to minimize such negative impact on the environment, the managers of Curragh mine in 2014 undertook investigations for improving the lighting technology to improve the availability of units. In the words of Fonseca, McAllister and Fitzpatrick (2014), such improvement is of utmost importance in minimizing the greenhouse gas emissions, operating costs and the availability of units. Therefore, these new units have been set up in the year 2015 by replacing the previous 28 metal halide lighting units. The numbers of units introduced are 21 LED units. With the help of these new units, Wesfarmers Resources has been able to minimize the usage of fuel by nearly 700,000L per year. As a result, the annual operating cost of the organization has been minimized by $760,000 with reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of approximately 2,000 tones CO2e (Ioannou and Serafeim 2014). Figure 2: Energy use of Wesfarmers Resources (Source: Wesresources.com.au 2016) The above graph illustrates the energy use of Wesfarmers Resources for the years 2011-2015. It is evident that the organization has switched to make sustainable use of resources for minimizing the negative impact on the environment and related communities. As per the guidelines of GRI G4, an organization needs to disclose its greenhouse gas emission-related data, use of energy efficient resources and introduction of new units. Therefore, Wesfarmers Resources has followed all the relevant guidelines in making the environmental disclosures associated with sustainability reporting. Social aspect: The mining operations possess serious threat to the employees involved in such activities and the society as a whole (Hahn and Khnen 2013). In order to minimize such activities, the organization has undertaken necessary controls and measures to ensure the safety of the workers and the community as a whole. The organization has implemented the Curragh code of business conduct to maintain the integrity and ethics while engaging in dealings. The organization provides employment opportunities to the small organizations of the local communities that intend to help the society. Moreover, Wesfarmers Resources has implemented a whistle blower policy, which could be accessed on the part of the staffs to maintain the highest governance standards. This has been implemented in the year 2014 and the same process has been followed in the year 2015. According to GRI G4 guidelines, the social aspects could be divided into the following sub-categories: Amenities and infrastructure: Curragh mine of Wesfarmers Resources takes and releases waterfrom the Mackenzie River; however, it follows the water management practices strictly. The organization provides a complete overview on the river system to maintain the amenities and infrastructure of the river system. In addition, the organization is involved in reporting conditions of the marine environment; thus, providing relevant information about the amenities and infrastructure, which is prepared in accordance with the GRI G4 guidelines (Idowu et al. 2013). Social and cultural life: The organization has also relied stress on protecting the biodiversity of the eco-systems in order to protect flora and fauna on-site for accomplishing its conditions of environmental approval. In order to compensate the loss of 220 hectares of land in Brigalow ecological community, Wesfarmers Resources has provided an offset area (Lvehagen and Bondesson 2013). The Department of Natural Resources and Mining is a voluntary apparatus for protecting the areas of vegetation. Curragh has been working with the landholders now to prevent soil erosion, ensure fire management practices and rehabilitation, when deemed necessary. Thus, it has made all the relevant disclosures in accordance with the GRI G4 guidelines. Voice and influence: Wesfarmers Resources has been involved in entering into a partnership with the Australian Indigenous Mentoring Experience (AIME). This program is mainly intended to increase the opportunities for indigenous children completing high school. The partnership was formed in July 2013 and the program has been continuing until date. The organization aims to provide coaching principles and mentoring to involve the students belonging to indigenous high school for excelling in their career. It has been observed that the indigenous students have increased from 4% in 2012 to 22% in 2015 for attending the university. Thus, the organization has made relevant social disclosures in compliance with the GRI G4 guidelines (McKinnon et al. 2015). Space to grow: Currgah mine of Wesfarmers Resources has been involved in empowering indigenous woman for helping them to excel in their future. In order to empower indigenous woman, the woman has been involved in providing employment opportunities to disadvantaged indigenous woman in Central Queensland. Thus, it provides a space to the indigenous woman in the year 2014 and 2015 to grow in their lives. Most relevant guideline to Wesfarmers: Based on the above discussion, the most relevant guideline for Wesfarmers Resources would comprise of the environment aspects, as laid out in the GRI G4 guidelines. Since, this is a mining industry is based on use of different energy resources and emission of greenhouse gases, It has been found that the necessary disclosures are made in the years 2014 and 2015 in accordance with the GRI G4 guidelines (Sharifi and Murayama 2014). In addition, following the environmental guidelines will help in fulfilling the expectations of the shareholders, since reduction in emission of greenhouse gas emissions will ensure sustainability reporting. Targets in the report: The main targets of Wesfarmers Resources in its sustainability report include fall in the greenhouse gas emissions through removal of mobile lighting technology. Curragh mine of the organization has installed LED lighting units in order to minimize the emissions of greenhouse gases through sustainable use of resources. In addition, it also aims to empower the indigenous children completing their high schools. The percentage has increased from 4% in 2012 to 22% in 2015, which shows that the target of Wesfarmers Resources has been successfully achieved (Morrison-Saunders and Pope 2013). Self-declared level of adherence and its appropriateness: In accordance guidelines as stated by GSI states that the companies preparing their sustainability reports are required to identify the major determinants that falls under the General Standard Disclosures. The primary form of such standard disclosures comprises of strategy, analysis of operations, the sets of organizational composition prevalent in the organization (Globalreporting.org 2016). This is to be followed with the disclosures pertaining to stakeholder engagement, ethics, integrity, and governance in the functioning of the organization. Finally, the report profile as regards to the sets of disclosure undertaken by the company in its annual report, sustainability reports is to be taken into consideration for adhering to the in accordance guidelines. Wesfarmers Resources identifies several factors that it feels as material in reference to its businesses. The factors that the company identifies as relevant comprises of safety, water extraction, bio diversity, climate change (wesfarmers.com.au 2016). Moreover, the company emphasizes upon providing support to communities along with maintaining safety of its various stakeholders. The company discloses the fact those in terms of emissions, the companys overall emissions has increased by over 16%. Moreover, in terms of road safety, the company has minimized the recordable rate in relation to frequency of injury in order to facilitate enhancement of health and safety measures undertaken by the company. In terms of good corporate governance, the company has initiated measures to improve the transparency. However, there has been no visible set of measure to increase gender diversity in the management. Moreover, the overall degree of disclosure in regards to the adherence to ethical guidel ines and business operations providing integrity has been minimal. The company has provided satisfactory disclosures as regards to its company strategies in relation to the investment in newer mining quarries, its prospective sets of investments onto renewable energy sources. The functioning of different sets of committee over-viewing the functional activities of the company has been disclosed in the different sets of reports prepared by Wesfarmers Resources (Alonso?Almeida 2014). In terms of report profile, the company has failed towards providing data as regards to material facts. Further, with respect of material facts the data provided can be construed as minimal. Guidelines followed in preparing the report: The company in accordance with the guidelines specified by the GSI in order to facilitate the contribution of the company has prepared the sustainability reports. The disclosures that have been made in the annual statements of the company have been prepared in accordance with the Corporations Act. Moreover, the participation of the company in several environmentally sustainable programs has been facilitated through the disclosures made in accordance with the UN Global Compact by the company. The company has been a participant in UN Global Compact from 22 April 2015 (Unglobalcompact.org 2015). Verification of the report and scope of the assurance: The Chairman and Managing Directors of the company have verified the sustainability reports as regards to the company. Management has provided the assurance as regards to the sustainability initiatives undertaken by the company. However, lack of assurance in terms of verification by external auditors as regards to such sustainable policies can hinder the overall evaluation of transparency. Part B Being an employee of consumer watch group comparison on the sustainability reporting by Fujju Xerox Australia Pty Limited is carried out in this section. It was observed that Fuji Xerox released a sustainability report in the year 2014 in Australia. However, in the year 2015, the company decided to release its sustainability report through its head office in Japan. Certain differences in the guidelines employed for disclosure and reporting was observed in its sustainability reports from Japan and Australia. Fuji Xerox Comparison Difference in Guidelines employed in Sustainability Report of 2014 and 2015 The sustainability report of Fuji Xerox was prepared by the company in alliance with the key G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines of thee international reporting initiatives. Certain difference has been observed in the sustainability reports regarding disclosure of its non-financial information. The guidelines that the company used in its sustainability report in the year 2014 is found to be quite different from the companys sustainability report in the year 2015. The sustainability report of the company in this year was prepared in compliance with the concepts of G4 sustainability reporting guidelines. Moreover, the company also conferred with the 2012 edition of the Japanese ministry of the guideless regarding Environmental Reporting. The general standard disclosures such as G4-1 offered a statement from the most senior decision-maker of the company regarding the importance of sustainable to the company and its strategy for dealing with the sustainability (Bebbington et al. 2014) . G4-2 offered an elaboration of major risks, impacts, as well as opportunities to the company in the year 2014. However, in the year 2015 the G4 GRI guidelines of Fuji Xerox were observed to be quite distinct from its sustainability report released from Australia in the year 2014. In alignment to such GRI guidelines, the company considered to review the standard disclosures recently and identify any issue that can need further work other the three aspects mentioned in its report produced in Japan. In this report of 2015, the company adhered with certain different G4 guidelines such as under G4-33 the company-released report on the organizations policy and the recent practice in consideration to gaining external assurance for the report. Factors Causing Different (2015) Influences in Reports Produced in Australia (2014) and Japan The sustainability report of 2014 and 2015 of Fuji Xerox are different as in 2014, Fuji Xerox Australia Pty Ltd released a sustainability report whereas the sustainability report of 2015 was released from the head office of Fuji from Japan. It is seen that there has been a significant amount of changes in the guidelines used in the preparation of the report. This is due to various factors, which are different for both Australia and Japan. These factors will be discussed as follows: Environmental Impact: The environment in Australia is different from Japan due to climatic changes and topographical transformations. Therefore, it is seen that the guidelines and method of preparation varies from both the countries (Morrison-Saunders, and Pope, 2013). Community: The community and the society where the report is being prepared have different perspective towards sustainable development and thus the guidelines are prepared accordingly. The community plays a vital role and therefore the report prepared is according to the interests of the society. Culture: The culture plays a pivotal role for the preparation of the report and therefore, it is seen that the culture functioning in Australia is different from Japan. The functioning of an organization takes place according to the culture prevailing in the country so that it becomes easier for the customers to understand the validity of the report. Health and Wellbeing: The health and wellbeing of the citizens living in both the countries are different and therefore it is seen that the report of 2014 and 2015 are different. The employees working in the organization in Japan and Australia have different health issues and therefore the report is prepared according to the health proposition of the employees. Financial Factor: It is also seen that the investment and the percentage change in the financial procedure is different for both the countries as the investors functioning in both the countries have different perspectives. Therefore, the level of investment will differ from country to country thus altering the guidelines of Fuji Australia Pty Ltd 2014 from the report prepared by Fuji Xerox 2015 in Japan (Sharifi, and Murayama, 2014) Comparison and Evaluation of the Companys 2014 and 2015 Sustainability Report Considering G4 GRI Guidelines There have been significant changes in the sustainability report of the organization in 2014 and 2015 due to the preparation of the report in different countries. The reports are prepared considering the Global Reporting Initiative. It is a standard prepared to help the organizations to understand and communicate their effects on different issues affecting the organization. The standards of the guidelines are created so that the third parties can evaluate the environmental effects from the operations of the organization. The performance indicators focus on the environmental, social, and economical aspects of an organization (Carroll, and Buchholtz, 2014). According to the G4 GRI guidelines, Fuji Xerox has prepared their sustainability reports for the year 2014 and 2015. The report in 2014 was prepared with the Australian perspective and thus the report deals with the problems occurring in Australia. On the other hand, the report in 2015 is prepared considering he problems in Japan. The report in 2015 is prepared looking after the welfare of the customers, global and local environment, employees, suppliers, the local society etc. The report aims to educate the future generations and conserving the cultures and information of the country. The report aims to support the reconstruction of the places affected by the Japan Earthquake. It also aims to strengthen the corporate social responsibility introduction in the production unit o the company. It helps to reduce the CO2 emissions from the customers. It tries to develop a human resource and an environment with a diversified work force. This report is based on Japan (Lvehagen, and Bondesson, 2013). The 2014 report comprising of the country Australia is concerned about transforming the business according to the changing environment, procuring the responsibility, creating cultural harmony within the country. It also aims to attract the right talented people from the society and tries to train them to maximize its productivity. The well-being of the society and the employees are also taken under scrutiny and develops a society and environment. This is healthy and harmonious. Part C Based on the GRI guidelines analysis of wesfarmers it was gathered that several unit of westfarmes attempted to enhance the lighting technology in order to enhance the accessibility of the units. This attested to reduce early costs savings of the company as well as annual emission of the harmful greenhouse resources. Following such strategies, the company intended to comply with the GRI G4 guidelines in maintaining corporate social responsibility. Based on the sustainability report analysis of Wesfarmers Resources Company, certain recommendations are recommended that will ensure better adherence to sustainability and corporate governance guidelines (Boyd and Golden, 2016). The company is recommended to revise its general and specific standards regarding supply chain. Moreover, the company is recommended to comply with general standard governance disclosures and ethics and integrity disclosures. From the sustainability report analysis of Fuji Xerox, company in alignment with the GRI G4 guidelines indicated that in the sustainability the guidelines that the company used in its sustainability report in the year 2014 is found to be quite different from the companys sustainability report in the year 2015. Based on the sustainability report of 2014 it was gathered that G4-2 offered an elaboration of major risks, impacts as well as opportunities to the company in the year 2014. However, in the year 2015 the G4 GRI guidelines of Fuji Xerox was observed to be quite distinct from its sustainability report released from Australia in the year 2014. Based on the sustainability report analysis of Fuji Xerox Company, certain recommendations are recommended that will ensure better adherence to sustainability and corporate governance guidelines. The company is recommended to report CHG emissions and energy based standard disclosures in both Japanese and Australian sustainability reports (Ha hn and Llfs 2014). Moreover, both its Australian and Japanese sustainability report must adhere with specific G4 guidelines in order to comply with effective sustainability regulations such as strategy and analysis, organizational profile, labor practices and efficient decent work and human rights as well as society. Part D The evaluation of the sustainability reports of Wesfarmers Company and Fuji Xerox send as a great assessment technique in developing skills for my personal as well as professional future. The assessment tasks increased my understanding on the capability to locate as well as interpret information. From the evaluation of the sustainability reporting of both the companies I came to learn that a focus on sustainability a facilitate a company to manage their social and environmental effects along with enhancing their operational efficiency. Part A and Part B of the assignment increased my understanding on the relevance of GRI requirements and evaluation on the use of the GRI guidelines was followed. This enhanced the disclosure of the companies from the year 2014 to 2015. Both the assessments tasks completed in Part A and Part B increased my understanding on certain important GRI guidelines concept, necessary principles, corporate governance stakeholders, moral and ethical obligations, an d corporate social responsibility. Sustainability report analysis of Fuji Xerox and Wesfarmer Resources Company based on GRI guidelines enhanced my knowledge on the Australian corporate governance and its possible impact on committee and board functions and structure along with the organizations officers training, behavior and induction in order to safeguard the interests of all the stakeholders involved in the business. Evaluation of the GRI guidelines use by both the companies helped me to gain knowledge on the principles of efficient corporate governance s ell as corporate disclosure needs. Several major theories and concepts regarding aspects of corporate social responsibility (CSR) became clear after the evaluation of the sustainability reports of both the companies for the year 2014 and 2015. The learning outcomes gathered from the competition of both the assessment tasks well help me in implementing such knowledge in the real world situations. The understanding on the GRI guidelines importance in preparation of sustainability reports through both the assessment tasks in Part A and Part B will be effectively used in the workplace. Moreover, such learning outcomes will help me in better evaluation of the sustainability position of the companies and will efficiently help me in justifying the decisions I make in consideration to the gathered information. Conclusion The objective of the paper is to conduct the sustainability performance analysis of Wesfarmers Resources Company and Fuji Xerox. Additionally, the differences in the guidelines used for both the companys reports were evaluated for the years 2014 and 2015. Reflective journal on the personal development has been gained through the completion of sustainability report analysis of Wesfarmer Resources Company and Fuji Xerox. From the report, it was gathered that the sustainability report of Fuji Xerox was prepared by the company in alliance with the key G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines of thee international reporting initiatives. Certain difference has been observed in the sustainability reports regarding disclosure of its non-financial information. The guidelines that the company used in its sustainability report in the year 2014 is found to be quite different from the companys sustainability report in the year 2015. Moreover, from the both its Australian and Japanese sustainability report must adhere with specific G4 guidelines in order to comply with effective sustainability regulations such as strategy and analysis, organizational profile, labor practices and efficient decent work and human rights as well as society. Based on the sustainability report analysis of Wesfarmers Resources Company, certain recommendations are recommended that will ensure better adherence to sustainability and corporate governance guidelines. The company is recommended to revise its general and specific standards regarding supply chain. Reference List and Bibliographies Adams, C., Muir, S. and Hoque, Z., 2014. Measurement of sustainability performance in the public sector.Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal,5(1), pp.46-67. Ainapur, R., Rao, B.R. and Iacocca, L., 2014. Prominence of stakeholders in designing sustainability reporting practices based on G4 Guidelines.International Journal of Management,11(5), pp.70-75. Alonso?Almeida, M., Llach, J. and Marimon, F., 2014. A closer look at the Global Reporting Initiative sustainability reporting as a tool to implement environmental and social policies: A worldwide sector analysis.Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,21(6), pp.318-335. Bebbington, J., Unerman, J. and O'Dwyer, B., 2014.Sustainability accounting and accountability. Routledge. Boiral, O. and Henri, J.F., 2015. Is sustainability performance comparable? A study of GRI reports of mining organizations.Business Society, p.0007650315576134. Boyd, G. and Golden, J.S., 2016. Enhancing Firm GHG Reporting: Using Index Numbers to Report Corporate Level Measures of Sustainability. Carroll, A.B. and Buchholtz, A.K., 2014.Business and society: Ethics, sustainability, and stakeholder management. Nelson Education. Eccles, R.G., Krzus, M.P., Rogers, J. and Serafeim, G., 2012. The Need for Sector?Specific Materiality and Sustainability Reporting Standards.Journal of Applied Corporate Finance,24(2), pp.65-71. Fonseca, A., McAllister, M.L. and Fitzpatrick, P., 2014. Sustainability reporting among mining corporations: a constructive critique of the GRI approach.Journal of Cleaner Production,84, pp.70-83. Frias?Aceituno, J.V., Rodriguez?Ariza, L. and Garcia?Sanchez, I.M., 2013. The role of the board in the dissemination of integrated corporate social reporting.Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,20(4), pp.219-233. Fuente, J.A., Garca-Snchez, I.M. and Lozano, M.B., 2017. The role of the board of directors in the adoption of GRI guidelines for the disclosure of CSR information.Journal of Cleaner Production,141, pp.737-750. Global Reporting Initiative, 2013. The GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines Main Features of G4. Globalreporting.org. (2016). [online] Available at: https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/main-features-of-g4.pdf [Accessed 20 Oct. 2016]. Hahn, R. and Khnen, M., 2013. Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research.Journal of Cleaner Production,59, pp.5-21. Hahn, R. and Llfs, R., 2014. Legitimizing negative aspects in GRI-oriented sustainability reporting: A qualitative analysis of corporate disclosure strategies.Journal of Business Ethics,123(3), pp.401-420. Idowu, S.O., Capaldi, N. and Zu, L., 2013.Encyclopedia of corporate social responsibility. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Initiative, G.R., 2013. G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Amsterdam, Netherlands: GRI. Ioannou, I. and Serafeim, G., 2014. The consequences of mandatory corporate sustainability reporting: evidence from four countries.Harvard Business School Research Working Paper, (11-100). Ioannou, I. and Serafeim, G., 2014. The consequences of mandatory corporate sustainability reporting: evidence from four countries.Harvard Business School Research Working Paper, (11-100). Jones, P., Comfort, D. and Hillier, D., 2015. Managing materiality: a preliminary examination of the adoption of the new GRI G4 guidelines on materiality within the business community.Journal of Public Affairs. Jones, P., Hillier, D. and Comfort, D., 2016. The sustainable development goals and business.International Journal of Sales, Retailing and Marketing,5(2), pp.38-48. Junior, R.M., Best, P.J. and Cotter, J., 2014. Sustainability reporting and assurance: a historical analysis on a world-wide phenomenon.Journal of Business Ethics,120(1), pp.1-11. Kawahara, N. and Irie, N., 2015. Articles Analysis on the Compliance with GRI Guidelines and the Information Disclosed by Japanese Companies. = Shokei-gakuso: Journal of Business Studies,61(3), pp.19-35. Llena, F. and Talalweh, M., 2015. Factors Determining Social and Environmental Performance of Islamic Companies: Analysis of Sustainability Related Reporting Practices.Jordan Journal of Business Administration, 11(4). Lvehagen, N. and Bondesson, A., 2013. Evaluating sustainability of using ICT solutions in smart citiesmethodology requirements. InProceedings of the First International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Sustainability (ICT4S)(Vol. 1, pp. 175-182). Lozano, R., 2013. Sustainability inter-linkages in reporting vindicated: a study of European companies.Journal of Cleaner Production,51, pp.57-65. Maas, K., Crutzen, N. and Schaltegger, S., 2014. Special volume of the Journal of Cleaner Production on Integrating corporate sustainability performance measurement, management control and reporting .Journal of cleaner production,65, pp.7-8. McKinnon, A., Browne, M., Whiteing, A. and Piecyk, M. eds., 2015.Green logistics: Improving the environmental sustainability of logistics. Kogan Page Publishers. Morrison-Saunders, A. and Pope, J., 2013. Conceptualising and managing trade-offs in sustainability assessment.Environmental Impact Assessment Review,38, pp.54-63. OSullivan, N., 2015. The Global Reporting Initiative Guidelines and External Assurance of Investment Bank Sustainability Reports: Effective Tools for Financial Sector Social Accountability?. InResponsible Investment Banking(pp. 251-266). Springer International Publishing. Sharifi, A. and Murayama, A., 2014. Neighborhood sustainability assessment in action: Cross-evaluation of three assessment systems and their cases from the US, the UK, and Japan.Building and Environment,72, pp.243-258. Solsbach, A., Isenmann, R., Gmez, J.M. and Teuteberg, F., 2014. Inter-organisational Sustainability Reporting-A harmonized XRBL approach based on GRI G4 XBRL and further Guidelines. InEnviroInfo(pp. 9-16). Stirn, S., Martens, M. and Beusmann, V., 2016. 74. EU-sustainability reporting requirementsan incentive for more sustainable food retailers?.Food futures, p.484. Unerman, J. and Zappettini, F., 2014. Incorporating materiality considerations into analyses of absence from sustainability reporting.Social and Environmental Accountability Journal,34(3), pp.172-186. Unglobalcompact.org. (2015). Wesfarmers Limited | UN Global Compact. [online] Available at: https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/participants/56331-Wesfarmers-Limited [Accessed 20 Oct. 2016]. Wesresources.com.au. (2016). [online] Available at: https://www.wesresources.com.au/ [Accessed 20 Oct. 2016].