Aust. Business Sustainability: Wesfarmers Essay Comparison.

Wesfarmers Comparison

Describe about the Australian Business Sustainabilit Report.

G4 GRI Guidelines offers guidance in a user friendly manner and helps in improving the technical quality of the guidelines, so as to eliminate the chances of ambiguity and diverse interpretations, so that it benefits the users and reports of such information, in a uniform manner. These guidelines help in focusing upon what matters and where it matters. These guidelines also enable the identification of the critical matters which have to be managed and changed, and if the entity is ready to manage such matters or not. Further, these guidelines are focused on the material sustainability related issues.

Corporate Governance and Social Responsibility Issues

Corporate Governance refers to the practices, standards, and rules, which a company has to follow, to ensure that the company works in a justified manner. Corporate Governance involves social responsibility and relates to balance of the interests of the various stakeholders, including the customers, financiers, shareholders, management, community, as well as, the government.

Corporate governance includes the decisions made by the management of the company and often involves a lot of issues with it. The Board of the company has been committed in providing satisfactory returns to its stakeholders, as well as, fulfilling the obligations, along with the responsibilities associated with corporate governance, in the best interest of the company.

The company is working towards ensuring that the composition of the Board has the appropriate mix of skills, as well as, is as per the corporate governance standards. The company has to face issues regarding the independent status of one of its directors and had to review the position as well as relationship of all of its directors (Wesfarmers, 2015).

The company also complies with the Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations issued by the ASX Corporate Governance Council’s third edition (Wesfarmers, 2015). Wesfarmers is affected by various material sustainability issues. To help the social issues, the company supports the local communities, especially in cases of natural disasters. Further, to monitor the quality issues related to the products of the company, the company offers ‘Greener Work Place’, as well as measures the delivered in-full on time.

Other issues relating to the matter of corporate governance and social responsibility relates to the inherent risk associated with the operations of Wesfarmers, for instance, the safety incidents, the supply chain issues, and the products-services liability risks. The company is constantly engaged with its stakeholders to understand the issues which affect them (Wesfarmers, 2015). These issues are addressed and the progress is reported in the sustainability report of the company. The sustainability issues are managed by the Board of the company at divisional level and are regularly reported. In the following parts, these issues affecting the various stakeholders of the company, in line of the G4 GRE Guidelines have been highlighted.

Corporate Governance and Social Responsibility Issues

The company has been following a range of G4 GRI Guidelines (Wesfarmers, 2015). The level of self-adherence of these guidelines has been summarized below:

Category	Aspect	GRI G4 Guidelines
Economic	Economic Performance	G4-DMA and G4-EC1
Economic	Market Presence	G4-DMA and G4-EC5
Environmental	Energy	G4-DMA and G4-EN5
	Water	G4-DMA and G4-EN8
	Biodiversity	G4-DMA and G4-EN11
	Emissions	G4-DMA, G4-EN15, G4-EN16, and G4-EN17
	Effluents And Waste	G4-DMA and G4-EN23
	Products And Services	G4-DMA and G4-EN27
	Compliance	G4-DMA and G4-EN29
	Transport	G4-DMA and G4-EN30
	Overall	G4-DMA and G4-EN31
	Supplier Environmental Assessment	G4-DMA and G4-EN33
	Environmental Grievance Mechanisms	G4-DMA and G4-EN34
Social: Labor Practices And Decent Work	Employment	G4-DMA and G4- LA1
	Labor/Management Relations	G4-DMA and G4- LA4
	Occupational Health And Safety	G4-DMA and G4- LA6
	Training And Education	G4-DMA and G4- LA10
	Diversity And Equal Opportunity	G4-DMA and G4- LA12
	Equal Remuneration For Women And Men	G4-DMA and G4- LA13
	Supplier Assessment For Labor Practices	G4-DMA and G4- LA15
Social: Human Rights	Investment	G4-DMA and G4- HR2
	Freedom Of Association And Collective Bargaining	G4-DMA and G4- HR4
	Child Labor	G4-DMA and G4- HR5
	Forced Or Compulsory Labor	G4-DMA and G4- HR6
	Supplier Human Rights Assessment	G4-DMA and G4- HR11
Social: Society	Public Policy	G4-DMA and G4- SO6
	Anti-Competitive Behavior	G4-DMA and G4- SO7
	Compliance	G4-DMA and G4- SO8
Social: Product Responsibility	Customer Health And Safety	G4-DMA and G4- PR1
	Product And Service Labeling	G4-DMA and G4- PR3
	Marketing Communications	G4-DMA and G4- PR6
	Compliance	G4-DMA and G4- PR9

(Wesfarmers, 2015)

The level of adherence of these guidelines for the year 2014 and 2015 has been summarized below. A comparison has also been made, along with the comments on the noncompliance of the particular guidelines.

Category

2014

(Wesfarmers, 2014)

2015

(Wesfarmers, 2015)

Comparison and Remarks

Economic

The company is responsible for providing employment to one out of 55 Australians.

The company earns 98% of its revenues from the country, as well as, 75% of the shares of the company on issue, are held in the country (Wesfarmers, 2014).

The company had employed 207282 people till June 2014.

The statistics reveal that for the year 2014, the company had made direct contributions amounting to 44.6 million dollars and the indirect contributions amounting to 50.8 million dollars (Wesfarmers, 2014). This makes the community contributions, by the Wesfarmers group as 95.4 million dollars (Wesfarmers, 2014).

The company meets the very basic needs of the community by providing food, tools, as well as, clothing to the community. The company is responsible for providing employment to one out of 59 Australians (Wesfarmers, 2015). The company has been paying taxes regularly and also provides the necessary support to the nonprofit organizations. The company earns 98% of its revenues from the country, as well as, 80% of the shares of the company on issue, are held in the country (Wesfarmers, 2015). This creates a major positive impact on the economy of Australia, along with contributing to the other economies.

The company paid $43,045 million to the suppliers, in addition to the wages and salaries, where the company paid more than $7,830 million to its 205000 employees. Further, the company paid $1,578 million in royalties, taxes, and levies, and $2,246 million in dividends to our 500,000 shareholders (Wesfarmers, 2015).

The company has contributed $50 million to community organizations which equals to 1.5 per cent of profit before income tax. Further, the company has assisted in donations from employees and customers, which totals to $52.7 million (Wesfarmers, 2015).

The statistics reveal that for the year 2015, the company had made direct contributions amounting to 50 million dollars and the indirect contributions amounting to 52.9 million dollars. This makes the community contributions, by the Wesfarmers group as 102.9 million dollars (Wesfarmers, 2015).

A special attention is paid in the matters like gender diversity, as well as, the inclusion of the Indigenous people.

The company has increased the share of providing employment to the people. Further, the company has also increased the share on issue within the country.

The company is regularly paying special attention to the matters like gender diversity, as well as, the inclusion of the Indigenous people.

So, in comparison to 2014, in the year 2015, the company has maintained and excelled at it’s the G4 GRI Guidelines.

Environmental

The company noticed a decrease in the emissions intensity, along with increasing the activities of recycling.

The Scope 1 and 2 emissions intensity showed a decrease by eight per cent as compared to 2013.

The green house emissions by Coles decreased this year, but the emissions at Target increased by 6.8 per cent.

The company is also trying to reduce the usage of water, along with finding more sustainable sources of water (Wesfarmers, 2014).

The company monitors and manages its greenhouse gas emissions, along with the possibility of reducing them.

The company has realized the importance of reducing waste creates not only environmental benefits, but benefits for the business as well. And so, the company has taken steps to divert its waste to recycling throughout the entire life cycle of the product. The company is also trying to reduce the usage of water, along with finding more sustainable sources of water.

The company has taken steps to protect the biodiversity. In order to manage this, the company has established an offset area at Mt Flora, so as to compensate the loss of 220 hectares to the ecological community.

The Scope 1 and 2 emissions (CO2e) totaled to 4,011,584.

The Scope 33 emissions (CO2e) contained the transport emissions at 13000, the air travel at 27337, the waste at 154701, the transmission and distribution of electricity at 474,622, and the LPG, natural gas and diesel at 103,110. The Equity proportion of joint venture businesses (CO2e) were reported at 275140. And the Emissions intensity (CO2e/$1 million revenue) was at 64.2 (Wesfarmers, 2015).

There was a one percent decrease in the Scope 1 and 2 emissions (CO2e).

The Scope 33 emissions (CO2e) are not comparable directly as the transport emissions were not included last year. If the transport emissions are excluded, there is a seven percent decrease in these emissions.

There has been a four percent increase in t the Equity proportion of joint venture businesses (CO2e).

And the Emissions intensity (CO2e/$1 million revenue) reported a one percent decrease. So, it can be seen that the emission intensity of the company has decreased overall.

The Company is continuously trying to reduce the usage of water, along with finding more sustainable sources of water.

Social

Labor Practices and Decent Work:

The Total Recordable injury frequency rate was 42.7 this year.

The Lost time injury frequency rate for this year was 7.7 percent.

The workers’ compensation claims for 2014 were 6940 (Wesfarmers, 2014).

Labor Practices and Decent Work:

As covered above, the company provides employment to one out of every 59 people in Australia. 59 percent of the wealth of the company is distributed in terms of wages, benefits and salaries to the employees.

The safety of the workplace is the highest priority for the company. The Total Recordable injury frequency rate was 39.5 this year. The Lost time injury frequency rate for this year was 7.3 percent. The workers’ compensation claims for 2015 were 7462 (Wesfarmers, 2015).

Labor Practices and Decent Work:

There has been a 7.5 percent improvement in the Total Recordable injury frequency rate. The Lost time injury frequency rate was reduced by 5.2 percent. The workers’ compensation claims decreased by 7 percent.

The company failed to provide the breakdown of its employee turnover as per age group; the breakdown of Total Recordable injury frequency rate and the Lost time injury frequency rate; and the aggregate ratio.

Human Rights:

The company focused towards improving the ethical sourcing of its products. This was done by strengthening the supply chain, as well as, increasing the transparency.

Human Rights:

The company sources its products from a wide range of location. Some of these nations follow lower levels of regulations and hence, the company is vigilant regarding the associated risks. The company also follows an ethical sourcing policy by setting minimum standards.

Human Rights:

The company failed to provide the percentage of the employees it trained.

Society:

The company complies with all the laws, as well as, regulations of all the countries, in which it conducts its business and acts in an ethical way. The anti-bribery policy of the company prohibits the political donations at both business unit, as well as, divisional level. If any such contributions are made, they are thoroughly published on the website of the company. And for the year 2014, no such contributions were made.

The company also considers the needs and the interests of its stakeholders.

Society:

The policy remained same in 2015.

The Company incurred significant fine to the amount of $10 million in penalty by the ACCC for Supplier Unconscionable Conduct, along with a $2.5 million penalty for ACCC/bread litigation case (Wesfarmers, 2015).

Society:

The compliance levels have been same in both the years. Though, the significant fines were incurred in certain cases in the year 2015, which was not the case in 2014. This implies that the level of compliance has been breached in 2015.

Product Responsibility:

The company has continued the innovation of the range of its products, as well as, its categories across all businesses. The company is also committed towards delivering safe and sustainable products, as well as, services to its customers.

Product Responsibility:

Even though there are minimal particular legal requirements for the restrictive use of chemicals in production, the company has decided to adopt a range of such aspects of the European Community Regulation.

Coles had a significant fine to the amount of $38,250 for incorrect importation classification of cat litter (Wesfarmers, 2015).

Product Responsibility:

The company failed to provide the percentage of the categories of the products. In comparison to 2014, the company incurred significant fine in 2015, so, in this aspect also, the company has declined.

The company submitted this report for the GRI Content Index Service. The accuracy of the GRI G4 Content Index was then, confirmed by the GRI. Since, the reported was directly confirmed by GRI, the need for assurance, does not arise.

The sustainability report for both 2014 and 2015 did not cover clear and defined targets. Further, this report was not user friendly, as a person had to toggle between lots of windows to find the relevant information, pertaining to a particular guideline. And even after that, some of the information was not available easily and had to be searched from the Annual Report. Though, the company has covered all the relevant applicable guidelines which are applicable on it.

Different Guidelines in the 2015 Report compared to the 2014 Report

The Guidelines followed by the company, in 2014 (Australia) and 2015 (Japan), have been compared below:

Category	Aspect	GRI G4 Guidelines	2014 (Australia) (Fuji Xerox, 2014)	2015 (Japan) (Fuji Xerox, 2015)
Economic	Economic performance	G4-EC1, and G4-DMA	Followed	Followed
	Economic performance	G4-EC2, G4-EC3, and G4-EC4	Not Followed	Followed
	Procurement practices	G4-EC9, and G4-DMA	Followed	Followed
	Indirect Economic Impacts	G4-DMA, G4-EC7, and G4-EC8	Not Followed	Followed
Environmental	Materials	G4-DMA, G4-EN1, and G4-EN2	Not Followed	Followed
	Energy	G4-DMA, G4-EN3, and G4-EN6	Not Followed	Followed
	Water	G4-DMA, G4-EN8	Not Followed	Followed
	Biodiversity	G4-DMA, G4-EN11, and G4-EN12	Not Followed	Followed
	Emissions	G4-DMA, G4-EN15, G4-EN16, G4-EN17, G4-EN18, G4-EN19, G4-EN20, and G4-EN21	Not Followed	Followed
	Effluents and Waste	G4-DMA, G4-EN22, G4-EN23, G4-EN24, and G4-EN26	Not Followed	Followed
	Products and Services	G4-DMA, G4-EN27, and G4-EN28	Not Followed	Followed
	Compliance	G4-DMA, and G4-EN29	Not Followed	Followed
	Overall	G4-DMA, and G4-EN31	Not Followed	Followed
	Transport	G4-EN30	Followed	Followed
	Supplier environmental assessment	G4-EN32	Followed	Not Followed
	Supplier environmental assessment	G4-EN33	Followed	Followed
	Environmental Grievance Mechanisms	G4-DMA, and G4-EN34	Not Followed	Followed
Social: Product responsibility	Product and service labeling	G4-PR5, G4-DMA	Followed	Followed
	Product and service labeling	G4-DMA, G4-PR3, and G4-PR4	Not Followed	Followed
	Customer Health and Safety	G4-DMA, G4-PR1, and G4-PR2	Not Followed	Followed
	Marketing Communications	G4-DMA, G4-PR6, and G4-PR7	Not Followed	Followed
	Customer Privacy	G4-DMA, and G4-PR8	Not Followed	Followed
	Compliance	G4-DMA, and G4-PR9	Not Followed	Followed
Social: Labor practices and decent work	Supplier assessment for labor practices	G4-LA15, and G4-DMA	Followed	Followed
	Supplier assessment for labor practices	G4-LA14	Followed	Not Followed
	Training and education	G4-LA11, G4-LA10, and G4-DMA	Followed	Followed
	Diversity and equal opportunity	G4-LA12 and G4-DMA	Followed	Followed
	Equal remuneration for women and men	G4-LA13, and G4-DMA	Followed	Followed
	Employment	G4-DMA, G4-LA1, G4-LA2, and G4-LA3	Not Followed	Followed
	Labor/Management Relations	G4-DMA, and G4-LA4	Not Followed	Followed
	Occupational health and safety	G4-DMA, G4-LA5, and G4-LA6	Followed	Followed
	Occupational health and safety	G4-LA8	Not Followed	Followed
	Labor Practices Grievance Mechanisms	G4-DMA, and G4-LA16	Not Followed	Followed
Social : Human rights	Non-discrimination	G4-DMA, and G4-HR3	Followed	Followed
	Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining	G4-DMA, and G4-HR4	Not Followed	Followed
	Child Labor	G4-DMA, and G4-HR5	Not Followed	Followed
	Forced or Compulsory Labor	G4-DMA, and G4-HR6	Not Followed	Followed
	Assessment	G4-DMA, and G4-HR9	Not Followed	Followed
	Supplier Human Rights Assessment	G4-DMA, G4-HR10 and G4-HR11	Not Followed	Followed
	Human Rights Grievance Mechanisms	G4-DMA, and G4-HR12	Not Followed	Followed
Social: Society	Local Communities	G4-DMA, SO1, SO2	Not Followed	Followed
	Anti-corruption	G4-DMA, SO3, SO4, and SO5	Not Followed	Followed
	Public Policy	G4-DMA, and SO6	Not Followed	Followed
	Anti-competitive Behavior	G4-DMA, and SO7	Not Followed	Followed
	Compliance	G4-DMA, and SO8	Not Followed	Followed
	Supplier Assessment for Impacts on Society	G4-DMA, SO09 and SO10	Not Followed	Followed
	Grievance Mechanisms for Impacts on Society	G4-DMA, and SO11	Not Followed	Followed

The G4 GRI Guidelines are company specific, industry specific, and country specific. The business of each company varies from the other, in some aspect or the other. These aspects result in a difference in the adherence to the guidelines. Further, the decisions of the senior management, as well as, the strategies of the companies, influence which guidelines would be adopted by it (Salter Baxter, 2012). The strategic priorities, along with the targets of the firm, also have an impact on the selection of these guidelines (GRI, 2016). The nature of the work of a company, also changes the adherence to these guidelines. For instance, a vehicle manufacturing company would have to follow different guidelines, as compared to a food manufacturing company.

Organizations have a range of topics, which they could report. The relevant topics would be such that reflect the entity’s economic, environmental, as well as, the social impacts on the stakeholders. Materiality is the starting point, according to which the Aspects become adequately significant, in a way that the need of reporting them, arises. A blend of the external, as well as, internal factors determines whether the Aspect is material (GRI, 2016). This includes the factors like the mission, vision, competitive strategy, concerns of stakeholders, social expectations, and the influence of the entity on the suppliers, as well as the customers.

G4 GRI Guidelines followed by the company

The second factor that influences the applicability of these guidelines is the industry. The type of the industry also has an impact over the applicability of these guidelines (GRI, 2016). For example, the polluting industry would have different guidelines applicable on it as compared to a non polluting industry.

The last factor, the one applicable in this case, is the country specific guidelines. Even though the G4 GRI Guidelines are uniform across the globe, but each country has a different set of applicable legislations (GRI, 2016). And so, depending upon such applicability, these guidelines apply on the company. The sustainability report of Fuji Xerox comparison for 2014, was made in Australia and the sustainability report of Fuji Xerox comparison for 2015, was made in Japan.

So, to summarize, the legislations, along with the internal and external factors of the company, are responsible for the difference in the reports produced in Australia (2014) and Japan (2015).

Category

2014

(Fuji Xerox, 2014)

2015

(Fuji Xerox, 2015)

Economic

The company has grown in the Australian market, from AU$400 million in 1999 to about

AU$1 billion in 2014 (Fuji Xerox, 2014).

Despite the changes in the industry, the company has improved upon its profitability, as well as, has been successful in creating suitable growth, along with financial stability for the longer run. But the company achieved the consolidated revenues to the amount of AUS$1 billion which was a 3% decline in comparison to previous year (Fuji Xerox, 2014).

The community investment amounted to $506412 with 3412 hours of volunteering in order to nurture the future generation.

For the year 2014, 57.3 percent of the company’s procurement expenditure was on equipment, which equated to AU$580 million, towards the supplies, as well as, consumables. This was the most significant aspect of the company’s supply chain (Fuji Xerox, 2014).

The consolidated revenue and the consolidated net income before income taxes for this year amounted to 1188.9 billion yen and 91.9 billion yen respectively (Fuji Xerox, 2015).

There was a remarkable improvement from the last year in the revenues, as well as, ordinary profits.

The goals were set for social contribution spending as this segment noticed a decline as compared to previous year. Though there was an increase in the number of participants compared to the previous year.

Environmental

For the year 2014, the air freight to the sea freight split was reported at 4.1% to 95.9%, which was a 1.5% improvement as compared to the previous year.

Objectives were set for 2015 regarding the “procuring responsibly outlook”.

All of the mills fulfill an annual based environmental questionnaire to meet the ISO 14001 and ISO 9001. Further, these are monitored for compliance as per the labor standards, specially pertaining to the child labor aspects. The paper sold to the customers of Australia, were a 100% FSC carbon neutral, PEFC certified, FSC certified or made out of recycled material (Fuji Xerox, 2014).

The company is focused towards recycling as well as reducing the CO₂emissions throughout the life cycle of the products.

Social

Labor Practices and Decent Work:

Out of the 83% of the employees who commenced the annual performance review cycle for this year, only 49% of them could complete the formal review process. 45% of the female and 50% of the male workforce completed these reviews. Further, extensive sales training was undertaken during this year (Fuji Xerox, 2014).

Labor Practices and Decent Work:

The company has identified its risks and opportunities in this segment, as well as, has set standards to be achieved during the coming fiscal years.

Human Rights:

During this year, no judgments were made, regarding discrimination, against the company or any of its employees. The few complaints which were received from the employees, including the complaints regarding discrimination, were handled strictly, and appropriate process was taken up to take the necessary actions after determining the facts.

Human Rights:

The company has identified and outlined a high priority management theme which takes into account the social circumstances, the nature of the business, and the management goals.

Society:

High priority is placed on the communication as well as monitoring in order to help the management in incorporating the stakeholder evaluations along with the feedback into the management process.

Due to stringent ethics and compliance norms, the company is able to fulfill its commitments towards anti-corruption and anti-competitive behavior.

Product Responsibility:

The company understands the needs of its customers and delivers on its promises. Through these, the company is able to deliver value to its customers and benefiting the environment through the Green Print technologies, as well as, services, sustainable paper supplies together with the new NCOS carbon neutral certified products, as well as, optimized print environments.

Product Responsibility:

The company has recognized the importance of product safety and has made it an overriding priority. This year also, the company held a product safety forum to eliminate product safety accidents.

From the above data, it can be deduced that the 2014 sustainability report prepared in Australia, follows lesser norms as compared to the 2015 sustainability report prepared in Japan. Due to the stringent policies in Japan, the same company has to follow a lot more guidelines. Further, the targets have been more clearly set in the 2015 report, which was clearly missing in the 2014 report.

Conclusion

Corporate governance, sustainability and social responsibility are interlinked terms and none of it can be used exclusively. Each of these terms intertwines their paths, in one aspect or the other, as was seen in the case of Wesfarmers. The various issues faced by the company, Wesfarmers, included the concepts of not only corporate responsibility, but also interlinked with the G4 GRE Guidelines. From the above analysis, it can be concluded that Wesfarmers has taken a lot of steps, to ensure that it follows, both the principles of corporate governance, as well as the sustainability guidelines.

The comparison of the G4 GRE Guidelines by Wesfarmers highlighted the variances in the adoption of the appropriate guidelines. But due to the number of non-compliances, as well as penalties, in the year 2015, by Wesfarmers, it is recommended to the company that it ensures that the guidelines are properly followed. Further, such instances also portray that the principles of corporate governance are not adequately followed, and hence, the company needs to follow these principles in a proper manner, and ensure that the incidents of penalties, are not repeated.

Comparison between the Reports of 2014 and 2015

From the above analysis of the two companies, it can be concluded that a lot of factors impact the G4 GRI guidelines reporting by a company. A same company, in two different companies can face disparities in the reporting guidelines. Further, the type of the company decides the applicability of the particular guideline on a company. And from the above analysis, it is recommended to the Wesfarmers Limited, to set out particular targets to be achieved regarding the adopted guidelines. Further, the company has to ensure that it follows the guidelines, instead of getting cases established against it, which are detrimental to these guidelines.

Fuji Xerox had presented two different reports, due to the change in the nations. Being in different nations, different guidelines are to be followed by the company. To conclude, the reason for variance in the sustainability reporting of Fuji Xerox is the result of the applicability different standards. So, it is it is recommended to Fuji Xerox, to follow the same set of guidelines, throughout all its branches, whether in this country or in Japan. This can be done as the guidelines are uniform across the globe, and so, common guidelines can, in fact, be adopted. Furthermore, Fuji Xerox Australia Pty Limited should set out specific targets as is done by its Japanese counterpart.

This assignment was formulated in a way, so as to test my skills regarding the location, as well as, interpretation of the information. Before starting this assignment, I was under the view that the G4 GRI Guidelines just cover the aspects in a broad and general manner. Further, I was under the impression, that a small report could cover every aspect of this guideline. However, my views were changed when I undertook this assignment. The first thing I learned was the number of disclosures undertaken by a company and the extent of disclosures. Even though the headings state economic, environment and social, but it is more than it. Each aspect had a number of standards to be followed.

This assignment helped me in clarifying how the corporate governance issues affect the working of any company. Before starting of this assignment task, I had read many principles of corporate governance, but the practicality of such principles was highlighted only after reading about the issues associated with it, in the case of Wesfarmers. The detail and extent of such issues, and the care taken by the companies to ensure the proper compliance, made me realize the importance of such principles.

By analyzing the data of two companies, over two years, especially when one of it had reported the two reports in different countries, has given me an idea about the factors that have an impact on the applicability of these standards. The integration of these guidelines in the functioning of these companies was also worth noting. Though, a huge issue that I encountered while making this assignment was the difficulty in locating the information, especially for the part A of this assignment. The information was not properly presented in case of Wesfarmers, but for Fuji Xerox, the information was easily accessible, as well as, interpretable.

By gaining the insights on these guidelines in the working of the companies, I was able to clear my concepts related to the integration of reporting in the Aspects covered under these guidelines. Further, this knowledge would help me in my future jobs, as now I have attained a practical understanding regarding the aspects associated with the sustainability reporting. In the future, when I become a manager, or a part of the higher management, this understanding would help me in applicability of the various regulations and standards followed by the companies. Further, by carrying out real time case study of two companies, I have gained insight on how to resolve the issues associated with sustainability and corporate governance.

References

Fuji Xerox. (2014) Fuji Xerox Australia Sustainability Report 2014. [Online] Fuji Xerox. Available from: https://www.fxasustainability.com.au/2014/report.php [Accessed on: 07/10/16]

Fuji Xerox. (2014) GRI G4 content index in accordance - Core. [Online] Fuji Xerox. Available from: https://www.fxasustainability.com.au/2014/gri_g4_content_index_in_accordance-core.pdf [Accessed on: 07/10/16]

Fuji Xerox. (2014) Report Centre 2014. [Online] Fuji Xerox. Available from: https://www.fxasustainability.com.au/2014/ [Accessed on: 07/10/16]

Fuji Xerox. (2015) GRI Guidelines. [Online] Fuji Xerox. Available from: https://www.fujixerox.com/eng/company/sr/2015/guidelines.html#sec10 [Accessed on: 07/10/16]

GRI. (2016) G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. [Online] GRI. Available from: https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/g4/Pages/default.aspx [Accessed on: 07/10/16]

GRI. (2016) Materiality. [Online] GRI. Available from: https://g4.globalreporting.org/how-you-should-report/reporting-principles/principles-for-defining-report-content/materiality/Pages/default.aspx [Accessed on: 07/10/16]

Salter Baxter. (2012) The five things you really need to know about GRI G4. [Online] Salter Baxter. Available from: https://www.salterbaxter.com/the-five-things-you-really-need-to-know-about-gri-g4/ [Accessed on: 07/10/16]

Wesfarmers. (2014) 2014 Sustainability Report. [Online] Wesfarmers. Available from: https://www.wesresources.com.au/sustainability_report_2014/ [Accessed on: 07/10/16]

Wesfarmers. (2014) Sustainability Report 2014. [Online] Wesfarmers. Available from: https://2014.sustainability.wesfarmers.com.au/ [Accessed on: 07/10/16]

Wesfarmers. (2015) 2015 Annual Report. [Online] Wesfarmers. Available from: https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20150917/pdf/431d8fyj0rz8zy.pdf [Accessed on: 07/10/16]

Wesfarmers. (2015) 2015 Sustainability Report. [Online] Wesfarmers. Available from: https://www.wesresources.com.au/sustainability_report_2015/ [Accessed on: 07/10/16]

Wesfarmers. (2015) GRI G4 Content Index. [Online] Wesfarmers. Available from: https://www.sustainability.wesfarmers.com.au/our-data/gri-g4-content-index/ [Accessed on: 07/10/16]

Wesfarmers. (2015) Sustainability at Wesfarmers. [Online] Wesfarmers. Available from: https://sustainability.wesfarmers.com.au/our-approach/sustainability-at-wesfarmers/ [Accessed on: 07/10/16]

Wesfarmers. (2015) Sustainability Report 2015. [Online] Wesfarmers. Available from: https://2015.sustainability.wesfarmers.com.au/ [Accessed on: 07/10/16]

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

My Assignment Help. (2018). Australian Business Sustainability Essay: Wesfarmers Comparison.. Retrieved from https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/australian-business-sustainabilit-report.

"Australian Business Sustainability Essay: Wesfarmers Comparison.." My Assignment Help, 2018, https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/australian-business-sustainabilit-report.

My Assignment Help (2018) Australian Business Sustainability Essay: Wesfarmers Comparison. [Online]. Available from: https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/australian-business-sustainabilit-report
[Accessed 25 November 2024].

My Assignment Help. 'Australian Business Sustainability Essay: Wesfarmers Comparison.' (My Assignment Help, 2018) <https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/australian-business-sustainabilit-report> accessed 25 November 2024.

My Assignment Help. Australian Business Sustainability Essay: Wesfarmers Comparison. [Internet]. My Assignment Help. 2018 [cited 25 November 2024]. Available from: https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/australian-business-sustainabilit-report.