Biodiversity Reporting Among Malaysian Companies: does the Risk Level Matter?

  • Authors

    • Norhayati Mat Husin
    • Azrinawati Mohd Remali
    • Bakhtiar Alrazi
    https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i4.35.22731

    Received date: December 1, 2018

    Accepted date: December 1, 2018

    Published date: November 30, 2018

  • biodiversity, Malaysia, reporting, risk

  • Abstract

    As Malaysia launched its National Key Economic Areas, biodiversity has been identified as one of the entry point projects for one of the sectors that will drive Malaysia towards high-income status i.e. tourism. Biodiversity, however, is facing a crisis, due to the development of business operation that has direct or indirect contribution to biodiversity loss. Despite the growing concern on biodiversity issue, previous studies have put more focus on general sustainability or environmental reporting issues. This paper aims to provide an analysis on the extent of biodiversity information disclosed by the top 100 Malaysian public listed companies and to see whether there is significant difference, in terms of reporting, between companies from different categories of biodiversity risk. The findings show 80 of the Malaysian companies disclose information regarding biodiversity with ‘mission statement’ being the highest reported biodiversity related item. There is also significant difference, in the context of biodiversity reporting, between companies from different categories of biodiversity risk. Further analysis shows companies with higher biodiversity risk (red-zone) provide more reports on biodiversity related information leading to a statistically significant difference from companies with lower biodiversity risk i.e. amber-zone and green-zone.

  • References

    1. Economic Transformation Programme – ETP, “Economic Transfor-mation Programme – Tourism: Annual Report” Retrieved from http://etp.pemandu.gov.my/annualreport/upload/Eng_ETP2012_08_NKEA06_Tourism.pdf . 2013
    2. Ministry of National Resources and Environment - NRE, “Biodi-versity in Malaysia”, Retrieved from http://www.nre.gov.my/Malay/Pusat-Media/Penerbitan/Biodiversity%20in%20Malaysia.pdf. 2006.
    3. The World Bank, “2013 World Development Indicators”, Retrieved from http://www.nre.gov.my/Malay/Pusat-Media/Penerbitan/Biodiversity%20in%20Malaysia.pdf. 2013.
    4. L. P. Koh and D. S. Wilcove, “Is oil palm agriculture really destroy-ing tropical biodiversity?”, Conservation Letter, vol. 1, 2008, pp. 60–64.
    5. D. S. Wilcove and L. P. Kol, “Addressing the threats to biodiversi-ty from oil-palm agriculture’, Biodivers Conserv, vol. 19, 2010, pp. 999–1007.
    6. E. B. Fitzherbert, M J. Struebig, A. Morel, F. Danielson, C. A. Bru¨hl, P. F. Donald and B. Phalan, “How will oil palm expansion affect biodiversity?”, Trends Ecol Evol, vol. 23, 2008, pp. 538–545.
    7. C. H. Cho and D. M. Patten “The role of environmental reportings as tools of legitimacy: A research note”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 32 (7-8), 2006, pp. 639-647.
    8. J. Rimmel and K. Jonall, “Biodiversity reporting in Sweden: Corpo-rate reporting and preparers’ views”, Accounting, Auditing & Ac-countability Journal, vol. 26 (5), 2013, pp. 746-778.
    9. D. Hackston and M. J. Milne, “Some determinants of social and environmental reportings in New Zealand companies’, Accounting, Auditing, & Accountability Journal, vol. 9(1), 1996, pp. 77–108.
    10. C. J. Van Staden and J. Hooks, “A comprehensive comparison of corporate environmental reporting and responsiveness”, British Ac-counting Review, vol. 39(3), 2007, pp. 197-210.
    11. A. Alazzani and W. N. Wan-Hussin “Global Reporting Initiative's environmental reporting: A study of oil and gas companies”, Eco-logical Indicators, vol. 32, 2013, pp. 19-24.
    12. C. Joseph and R. Taplin, “The measurement of sustainability report-ing: Abundance versus occurrence”, Accounting Forum, vol. 35 (1), 2011, pp. 19-31.
    13. Global Reporting Initiative “Biodiversity: A GRI Reporting Re-source”, Retrieved from https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/Biodiversity-A-GRI-Resource-Document.pdf. 2007.
    14. International Union for Conservation of Nature & United Nations Global Compact, “A Framework for Corporate Action on Biodiver-sity and Ecosystem Services”, Retrieved from http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/biodiversity2012.pdf. 2012.
    15. L. C. L. Teh, L. S. L., Teh and R. Jumin, “Combining human pref-erence and biodiversity priorities for marine protected area site se-lection in Sabah, Malaysia”, Biological Conservation, vol. 167, 2013, pp. 396–404.
    16. T. Soderman, “Treatment of biodiversity issues in impact assess-ment of electricity power transmission lines: A Finnish case review”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol. 26 (4), 2006, pp. 319–338.
    17. F&C Asset Management “Is biodiversity a material risk for compa-nies?” Retrieved from http://www.businessandbiodiversity.org/pdf/FC%20Biodiversity%20Report%20FINAL.pdf. 2004
    18. The Economics of Ecosystem and Biodiversity, “Chapter 2: Busi-ness impacts and dependence on biodiversity and ecosystem ser-vices” Retrieved from http://platformbee.nl/page/downloads/TEEBforbusinessch2_1_.pdf. 2012.
    19. J. Houdet, M. Trommetter and J. Weber, “Understanding changes in business strategies regarding biodiversity and ecosystem services”, Ecological Economics, vol. 73, 2012, pp. 37-46.
    20. C. De Villiers and C. J. Van Staden “Can less environmental report-ing have a legitimising effect? Evidence from Africa”, Accounting Organisations and Society, vol. 31(8), 2006, pp. 763–781.
    21. D. Campbell, B. Craven and P. Shrives “Voluntary social reporting in three FTSE sectors: A comment on perception and legitimacy”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, vol. 16(4), 2003, pp. 558–581.
    22. C. K. Lindblom, “The implications of organisational legitimacy for corporate social performance and reportings’, Paper presented at the Critical Perspectives on Accounting Conference, New York, NY.
    23. J. Guthrie, R. Petty and F. Ricceri “The voluntary reporting of in-tellectual capital: Comparing evidence from Hong Kong and Aus-tralia”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, vol. 7(2), 2006, pp. 254–271.
    24. M. V. Tilling and C. A. Tilt, “The edge of legitimacy – Voluntary social and environmental reporting in Rothmans‘ 1956–1999 annual reports”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 23(1), 2010, pp. 55–81.
    25. N. Mat Husin, “Intellectual capital reporting in Malaysian compa-nies: A multidimensional analysis’, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Auck-land University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand, 2012.
    26. J. D. Mahadeoa, V. Oogarah-Hanum and T. Soobaroyen, “Changes in social and environmental reporting practices in an emerging econ-omy (2004 – 2007): Exploring the relevance of stakeholder and le-gitimacy theories”, Accounting Forums, vol. 35, 2011, pp. 158 -175.
    27. C. Deegan, M. Rankin and J. Tobin “An examination of the corpo-rate social and environmental reportings of BHP from 1983–1997”, Accounting, Auditing, & Accountability Journal, vol. 15(3), 2002, pp. 312–343.
    28. G. Donovan, “Environmental reportings in the annual report: Ex-tending the applicability and predictive power of legitimacy theory” Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 15, 2002, pp. 344–371.
    29. D. K. Nyahunzvi, “CSR reporting among Zimbabwe's hotel groups: a content analysis”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospital-ity Management, vol. 25 (4), 2013, pp. 595 – 613.
    30. L. J. Kemp and J. Vinke, “CSR reporting: a review of the Pakistani aviation industry”, South Asian Journal of Global Business Re-search, 1 (2), 2012, pp. 276 – 292.
    31. M. A. Islam and M. A. Islam, “Environmental incidents in a devel-oping country and corporate environmental reportings – A study of a multinational gas company’, Society & Business Review, vol. 6(3), 2011, pp. 229–248.
    32. F. Darus, E. N. Che Ku Hamzah and H. Yusoff, H. “CSR Web Re-porting: The Influence of Ownership Structure and Mimetic Iso-morphism”, Procedia Economics and Finance, vol. 7,2013, pp. 236 – 242.
    33. E. Esa and N. A. Mohd Ghazali “Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance in Malaysian government-linked companies”, Corporate Governance, vol. 12 (3), 2012, pp. 292 – 305.
    34. R. Said, Y. H.. Zainuddin and H. Haron, “The relationship between corporate social responsibility reporting and corporate governance characteristics in Malaysian public listed companies”, Social Re-sponsibility Journal, vol. 5 (2), 2009, pp. 212 – 226.
    35. C. A. Adams, “A commentary on: Corporate social responsibility reporting and reputation risk management”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 21 (3), 2008, pp 365-370.
    36. J. Unerman, “Strategic reputation risk management and corporate social responsibility reporting”, Accounting, Auditing & Accounta-bility Journal, vol. 21 (3), 2008, pp. 362-364.
    37. C. Grabsch, M. J. Jones and J. Solomon, “Accounting for biodiver-sity in crisis: A European perspective’ Working paper presented at the 14th Financial Reporting & Business Communications Confer-ence, Bristol, 2010.
    38. D. Van Liempd and J. Busch, “Biodiversity reporting in Denmark”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 26 (5), 2013, pp. 833-872.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Husin, N. M., Remali, A. M., & Alrazi, B. (2018). Biodiversity Reporting Among Malaysian Companies: does the Risk Level Matter?. International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 7(4.35), 198-203. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i4.35.22731