Voluntary environmental standards in key russian industries: a comparative analysis

Abstract

This paper provides a comparative analysis of voluntary environmental standards in key Russian industries. Five Russian industries, namely the oil and gas, mining, power generation, forestry and financial sector, with a high economic and environmental impact were analysed in order to determine the degree of implementation of voluntary environmental standards. It was determined whether or not companies possess voluntary environmental standards and reporting, in the oil and gas, mining and electricity production industries, an ISO 14001 and/or sustainability (non-financial) reporting with confirmation by an independent third party in accordance with Global Reporting Initiative; in the forestry industry a Forest Stewardship Council certification; and in the financial sector the Equator Principles, United Nations Environmental Program Financial Initiative, Principles for Responsible Investments and Carbon Disclosure Project. The paper presents data and information on adherence to the above-mentioned standards by the main Russian companies by size in each sector. The research determined that the top performing industries are forestry and oil and gas, whereas the power generating industry and the financial sector show fairly low levels of implementation.

Environmental rating of oil and gas companies in Russia: How assessment affects environmental transparency and performance

“…The O&G sector in Russia is one of the most globalized sectors of the Russian economy with the widest presence of sustainability reporting and ISO 14001 certification (E. Shvarts, Bunina, et al, ). This is one of the reasons why voluntary regulatory systems can influence business policies even in nondemocratic contexts, except for small and some medium‐sized, purely domestic companies without international shareholders and listing on international stock‐exchanges (e.g., Tomskneft VNK, Slavneft, Russneft, Alliance‐NNK, Arctic Gas).…”

“…The rate of adoption of voluntary standards varies across economic sectors (Delgado‐Márquez & Pedauga, ; Guenther, Hoppe, & Poser, ; E. Shvarts, Bunina, & Kniznikov, ). Significant differences have been observed among industries representing so‐called “soft commodities” (timber, pulp and paper, marine bioresources, aquaculture, beef, palm oil, etc.)…”

“…We have previously developed a ratings method for the environmental responsibility of O&G companies, implemented for companies acting in Russia (E. Shvarts, Bunina, et al, ; E. A. Shvarts et al, ). The following three research questions were posed: Can voluntary mechanisms based on international environmental responsibility standards have a significant impact on the O&G sector, comparable to the influence of international voluntary standards applied to soft commodities (timber, marine biological resources, aquaculture, palm oil, soy, etc.…”

“…The rate of adoption of voluntary standards varies across economic sectors (Delgado-Márquez & Pedauga, 2017;Guenther, Hoppe, & Poser, 2006;E. Shvarts, Bunina, & Kniznikov, 2015).…”

China’s new Eurasian ambitions: the environmental risks of the Silk Road Economic Belt

“…From 2000 onward, the number of ecological management certificates issued to Chinese companies grew sharply (Qi et al 2011(Qi et al , 2012 to bring China, by 2007, to the position of a world leader in ISO 14001 certificates. Since then the number of ISO 14001 certificates in China has continued to increase while slowing down or even dropping in many other countries, including the United States and Japan ( Figure 1; Shvarts and Gerasimchuk 2010;Shvarts, Bunina, and Knizhnikov 2015).…”