Originality/valueWe critically analyze the most common framework for sustainability reporting on an empirical basis. Our qualitative study delivers insights into sustainability reporting in an industry with large impacts on global climate change and living conditions. PurposeWe discuss what the business contribution to sustainable development is (or should be) and propose criteria for assessing corporate sustainability. These criteria are applied for the analysis of GRI-reports of five major cement manufacturers. This will result in a discussion if GRI-based sustainability reports really contain the information needed for judging corporate sustainability. Methodology/approachStarting from a literature review of common definitions and principals we develop main criteria of corporate sustainability and propose a set of evaluation criteria for analyzing sustainability reports. We consider definitions and principals from concepts such as Ecoefficiency, Triple-Bottom-Line, The Natural Step and stakeholder value. Using these criteria we analyze the GRI-based sustainability reports of five major cement manufacturers in order to find out to what extent the reports really address the sustainability performance of the companies. We chose the companies because of their dominant position in the building material supply chain. The building industry has multiple impacts on the environment as well as on the social system. The decisions and actions of the cement manufacturers have influence on the entire supply chain, from raw material suppliers to the end customer. FindingsOur findings lead to the conclusion that the current GRI guidelines are not sufficient to make sustainability reporting for the cement industry relevant and clear. In other words, the guidelines are not sufficient for assuring that a report answers the questions of how sustainable a company is and how quickly it is approaching sustainability. Within the GRI guidelines the needs of the customers are not considered sufficiently. This points at an important area where business excellence ideas can support sustainability reporting. This could be done, for instance, by including the concept of cost of poor quality into sustainability reporting guidelines.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The aim of the research reported in this paper is to assess national differences between the Netherlands, Germany and Australia on the relative value of the 2000 version of the ISO 9000 series of quality management system standards in comparison to the 1994 version. A total number of 5606 organisations (the Netherlands, 3606; Germany, 1000; Australia, 1000), which have all been certified to the ISO 9000 standard, responded to a questionnaire survey. Amongst the major findings are overall positive perceptions of the value of the ISO 9000 (2000) quality system standard and a consistently higher appreciation of the 2000 version compared to the 1994 version. Regarding the differences between the three countries, the major issues are: Today, Australian respondents are the least interested in the ISO 9000 quality system standard. The response rate is the lowest of the three countries involved in the study; the percentage of (general) managers within the response group is low; they perceive the least changes they had to make in relation to the conversion; and the conversion took less time. Dutch respondents still have a high level of interest in the ISO 9000 quality system standard. They show a high response rate. In addition, the level of general managers within the response group is high and they seem to perceive the quality system more as a general management system. German respondents are the most positive about the ISO 9000 quality system standard and expect more positive effects on various business aspects. These differences lead to the conclusion that the diffusion of the ISO 9000 standard follows its own routes in different countries