Tapu ve Takyidat Bilgileri

The organisational sustainability maturity model (OSSM) aims at investigating Norwegian organisations’ readiness to sustainability through examining what information, structure, and framework/guidelines/groups they include/comply with in their SRs and/or ARs. Because maturity models usually are developed with a qualitative approach, and we had already carried out a thorough analysis, it was a suitable addition to our study. As such, both previous research and our own findings were used to develop the OSMM.

The three levels of organisational maturity utilized in this thesis, are drawn from the work of Sari et al., (2021) and Witek-Crabb (2019). Drawing on Sari et al., (2021) and Witek-Crabb’s (2019) work, we propose the following levels of maturity: Level 1: the initial stage: immature organisations with undefined sustainability measures, processes, and standards that are implemented on an ad hoc basis; Level 2: the managed stage: organisations with sustainability measures, processes and standards implemented to some degree; Level 3: the optimised stage: mature organisations where sustainability measures, processes and standards are monitored, managed and reported extensively.

To be able to determine the maturity-level of the organisations in the sample, we developed nine measures based on our own findings and Deloitte’s (2020) survey. The nine measures are presented in table 3. The scoring system for the measures is based on Witek-Crabb’s (2019) CSR maturity measure. The measures were scored on a scale between 0.0-1.0 with an 0,5 interval. As such, the total score on the measures ranges from 0.0-9.0. A score of 0.0-3.0 equals level 1, 3.5-6.0 equals level 2, and 6.5-9.0 equals level 3.

Table 3: Measures of Maturity Measure Score Description

Emission indicators in table

0 not included

0.5 partially reported or vague 1 fully reported

Emission indicators in text

0 not mentioned 0.5

partially mentioned, some vague or unspecific goals and measures

1 fully reported, goals and measures well described

0 none

Carbon Offsets 0.5 partially (i.e. for some emissions) 1 fully (i.e. carbon neutral)

0 none

GRI compliance 0.5 partially, i.e. mentioned but not fully visible in reporting 1 fully implemented

0 none

SDG compliance 0.5 mentioned but not well integrated 1 fully integrated

0 none

TCFD 0.5 mentioned

1 fully implemented / addressed

0 none

CSR

acknowledgment 0.5 CDP rank

1 DJSI, FTSE4Good

0 not included, or not any materialities connected to the environment

Materiality

Analysis 0.5

some materialities connected to environmental aspects included - not fully addressed

1

materialities directly linked to environment included and topics fully addressed

0 0 - 29 Amount of

information 0.5 30 - 49

1 50 - 100+

According to Deloitte (2019, 2020) organisations that report using the GRI and TCFD framework/guidelines, and include a Materiality Analysis achieve a higher score than companies that do not. For this reason, and because we observed considerable differences on these topics ourselves, we have chosen to include these frameworks/guidelines as measures. In addition, there were significant differences in the amount of information included, the extent to which topics were elaborated on (i.e. emissions), when and how well the SDGs were implemented, whether organisations purchased carbon offsets, and what kind of

acknowledgement of their CSR work they included in their reports. For instance, the majority of organisations reported compliance with CDP, but only some disclosed their rank. As such, only organisations that explicitly mention their rank receive a score (0,5) on the CSR acknowledgement measure. Similarly, many organisations mentioned a variety of rankings by various

organisations/groups/lists. However, due to the level of sustainability performance necessary to be included on the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) and

FTSE4Good index, only inclusion on one of these indices receive the highest score (1) on the CSR acknowledgment measure.

6.3.1 Level of Maturity in Norwegian Organisations

Graph 10 shows the development of the level of maturity for each organisation between 2010-2020. By examining the level of maturity a general trend is visible:

all organisations seem to evolve from having some variation, between 0.0-5.0, in 2010 to having a similar degree of variation, between 3.5-8.5, in 2020, with the exception of RG and WW. This is similar to the trend observed in the level of neutrality between 2010-2020. These findings indicate that as the level of neutrality generally increases and becomes more stabilized between

50.00%-87.50% towards 2020, the variability in the level of maturity generally increases, but remains stable in terms of variability.

Graph 10: Level of Maturity in Norwegian Organisations Between 2010-2020

Despite the similarity in the general trend of an upward trajectory between 2010-2020 in both maturity and neutrality, it would not be possible to use the level of neutrality to establish maturity levels and vice versa. This is because there are some significant variations in the level of neutrality and maturity for certain organisations. For instance, WW generally has a level of neutrality close to, or above 75% throughout the 2010-2020 time period. However, WW’s level of maturity generally ranges between 0.0-3.5. Similarly, Gjensidige has a lot of variability in level of neutrality, but stabilizes between 2018-2020. However, Gjensidige has a major rise in the level of maturity between 2018-2020, which is clearly not reflected in the level of neutrality. Lastly, Nordea showed a general downward trend in level of neutrality between 2010-2020, but a clear upward trend in level of maturity. These variations indicate that whilst organisations that have a high score on maturity generally have a more comprehensive and detailed sustainability reporting, they do not necessarily score higher on level of neutrality.

As such, these findings indicate that it is possible to report comprehensively, and still have a reporting practice with significant use of impression management techniques - resulting in non-transparent SRs and/or ARs.