SOCIAL & ECONOMIC ACTIVITY
Original Paper
UDC 331.45 © T.V. Kuklina, 2022
ISSN 0041-5790 (Print) • ISSN 2412-8333 (Online) • Ugol’ – Russian Coal Journal, 2022, № 3, pp. 72-75
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18796/0041-5790-2022-3-72-75
Title
Assessment of the quality of health and safety coverage in non-financial reports of coal companies: the case of SUEK JSC and Anglo American PLC
Author
Kuklina T.V.1
1Tomsk State University, Tomsk, 634050, Russian Federation
Authors Information
Kuklina T.V., Senior Lecturer,e-mail: tyarm@mail.ru
Abstract
Occupational safety is one of the key aspects of coal companies, given the high level of occupational risk in this industry. In recent years, companies in all industries have started to focus on disclosing not only financial performance, but also non-financial information to promote the sustainable development concept. Since the process of information disclosure in sustainability reports is not regulated, it seems important to conduct a comparative analysis of the completeness of information disclosure in the labor safety in sustainability reports using the examples of the largest Russian (SUEK JSC) and British (Anglo American PLC) coal companies.
Keywords
Labor protection, Workplace injuries, Social responsibility, Sustainable development, Global Reporting Initiative, GRI-403, Coal industry, Quality of information disclosure.
References
1. Nikolaou I.E., Tsalis T.A. Development of a sustainable balanced scorecard framework. Ecological Indicators, 2013,(34), pp. 76-86.
2. GRI-403: Occupational safety and health 2018. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/media/1910/gri-403-occupational-health-and-safety-2018.pdf (accessed 15.02.2022).
3. Garkavenko A.N. & Grun V.D. Assessment of corporate social responsibility of a coal company from the viewpoint of its main social partners' expectations. Ugol’, 2007. (1), pp. 25-27. (In Russ.).
4. Zhabin A.B., Polyakov A.V., Averin E.А. et al. General trends in sustainable development, corporate social responsibility and innovation in the Russian mining industry. Ugol’, 2020, (9), pp. 24-28. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.18796/0041-5790-2020-9-24-28.
5. Shipilov I.V., Betekhtina V.A., Tsai L.V. et al. Personalized medicine at SUEK. Ugol’, 2021, (7), pp. 45-51. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.18796/0041-5790-2021-7-45-51.
6. Daub C. Assessing the quality of sustainability reporting: An alternative methodological approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2007, (15), pp. 75-85.
7. A multi-level institutional perspective of corporate social responsibility reporting: A mixed-method study / K. Evangelinos, S. Fotiadis, A. Skouloudis et al. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020. DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121739.
8. Tsalis T.A., Stylianou M.S., Nikolaou I.E. Evaluating the quality of corporate social responsibility reports: The case of occupational health and safety disclosures. Safety Science, 2018, (109), pp. 313-323.
9. Ali F.H., Liaqat F., Azhar S., & Ali M. Exploring the quantity and quality of occupational health and safety disclosure among listed manufacturing companies: Evidence from Pakistan, a lower-middle income country. Safety Science, 2021. DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105431.
10. Lundy S. Occupational health and safety disclosures in sustainability reports: An overview of trends among corporate leaders. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 2018, (25), pp. 961-970.
For citation
Kuklina T.V. Assessment of the quality of health and safety coverage in non-financial reports of coal companies: the case of SUEK JSC and Anglo American PLC. Ugol’, 2022, (3), pp. 72-75. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.18796/0041-5790-2022-3-72-75.
Paper info
Received February 1, 2022
ReviewedFebruary 15, 2022
Accepted February 21, 2022
