Corporate Governance And Social Responsibility: Sandfire Resources Sustainability Report

GRI sustainability reporting guidelines for preparing sustainability report

Assessing and comparing sustainability report of SandFire for year 2015 and 2016 in relation to G4 GRI Guidelines:

A standard disclosure, reporting principles and implementation manual is offered by GRI sustainability reporting guidelines for preparing sustainability report of organizations. An organization is offered two options according to the guideline for preparing sustainability report that is comprehensive and core. An organization irrespective of size, location and sector can apply any of the two options. An organization is required to disclose the sustainability information in the aspects comprising of economic, social, environmental, social responsibility, society and human rights (Boulouta and Pitelis 2014).

The sustainability report of Sandfire Resources NL for year 2016 is prepared in accordance with the Core option of Global reporting Initiative G4 framework. Report is intended towards stakeholder of organization. While the sustainability report of year 2015 has been prepared in accordance with Global reporting Initiative G4 framework, however there has not been specification of options for preparing such report (globalreporting.org 2017). In this particular year sustainability report, it was acknowledged by organization that it is a part of community and it should strive for generating positive outcome for environment and society. On other hand, in year 2016, development of long-term sustainability strategy was the commitment of organization.

Presentation of Sustainability report of Sandfire Resources NL for year 2016 is somewhat different compared to previous year as the former year incorporates more components on different aspects. Sustainability report of year 2016 has segregated different components as has included additional requirement as per the guidelines of GRI. There is a separate section of sustainability at Sandfire, supply chain, operations, community, people and socio economic contribution of organization where supply chain and people were not presented separately.

The six phases of organizational sustainability includes rejection, non-responsiveness, compliance, efficiency, strategic proactivity and sustaining corporation ideological commitment. It is essential for organization to include the phases of sustainability in their sustainability report because the society wants organization to be more transparent in their reporting process. Efficiency phase helps organization in controlling cost and reducing the impact of their activities environment.

Rejection- In this phase, an organization rejects all the sustainability pressures and only profits matters to them along with display exploitative view of employees, nature and society. Sandfire does not operate in this particular phase as they help in shaping positive outcomes for people and society accompanies by embracing all the sustainability pressures.

Non-responsiveness- In this phase, an organization ignores environmental and community issues and all the issues concerning sustainability. Cost associated with sustainability are seen as unnecessary. Relating to this phase, it is said that sustainability is at the heart of Sandfire resources. Considerable amount is invested by organization in area of sustainability. For instance, Sandfire has adopted technologies of renewable energy in remote mine sites. Impact of operation on environment is minimized by commitment to solar power plant. Optimizing the management of land, water and waste is one of the considerable part of focus of organization (Cheng et al. 2014). It can be said that Sandfire does not operate in non-responsiveness phase.

Sandfire Resources NL sustainability report for year 2016

Compliance- In this phase, organization mostly oppose tighter environmental regulation policy and greater litigation risk is involved for meeting minimum standard attention. Management of resources at Sandfire is done in accordance with statutory requirement of environment regulation. It complies with all the environmental regulations in the area of its operation and it aligns with the vision of business to establish as sustainable business.

Efficiency-Organization operating in this phase displays the awareness of practices of sustainability and the main focus is to deliver cost benefits and focuses on efficiency. The process of risk communication has been improved and the awareness of risk management has been done by developing risk management video. Sandfire intends to create awareness about aboriginal groups and the treatment and status of indigenous Australians. Various measures are adopted to aware community about increased need to reduce environmental impact of their activities (globalreporting.org 2017). Therefore, organization is currently in the efficiency phase of sustainability.

Strategic productivity- In this phase, sustainability becomes the core business strategy and sustainability initiatives taken by organization helps in long-term profitability of business. The commitment of organization is to align strategy of business with sustainability in order to develop long-term sustainability strategy by the end of year 2018. However, as depicted by the sustainability report of year 2016, Sandfire has continuously improved their sustainability performance and disclosure in the areas of community, business, and corporate governance, areas of stakeholder reactions and management of environment. Hence, it can be said that Sandfire is in the path of strategic productivity phase of sustainability.

Sustaining corporation ideological environment- In this particular phase, values of sustainability are incorporated internally and there is active participation in creating social equity, human welfare, social, political and ecological renewal. Sandfire has made continuous effort in improving environment management and some of the measures of improving environment such as ecological resources are not internalized. Therefore, Sandfire does not have sustainable corporation ideological environment.

At Sandfire, sustainability is based on delivering social, economic and environmental benefits to stakeholders. In areas of activities and facilities, organization is committed to responsibly manage the environment and goals have been adopted for managing and mitigating impact of operation on environment. An environment management system is used by organisation that is supported by management plans, policies, guidelines and standard work practices. EMS align with the environment management standard that is ISO/AS14001:2004 (sandfire.com.au 2017). Such management system is subjected to review by internal department, internal review process of organization and external review every two years. Reporting on environment management operations is done by meeting statutory regulations.

Organizations demonstrating sustainability activities would be considered by Sandfire by providing support via funds, promoting healthy lifestyle, arts and culture, supporting disadvantageous sections of society. The safety performance of Sandfire has improved consistently and health and safety of people is the first priority of organization. Strengthening the safety culture is the main focus of Sandfire. There are many factors that has attributed to improved sustainability performance in terms of safety and health of people at work. Sandfire has been consistently focusing on verification of critical control and improvement of risk assessment. In year 2017, there were no illness, serious disabling injuries and fatalities and there has been consistent improvement of safety performance. Against a target of 5.0, total recordable injury frequency rate stood at 5.0 for the year ending 2016. There was improvement in loss rime injury frequency rate and the rate in previous year that is 2016 stood at 0.7 as compared to 0.8 for the year ending 30^th June, 2017 (sandfire.com.au 2017). Assurance reporting process was continually improved that enabled monitoring of hazards, risks and critical control in better way.  An important contribution has been made to regional economies and local communities by incorporating local business in supply chain and delivering solid financial return to shareholders. A positive social economic contribution has been made in areas through community partnership and investment that stood at $ 495000 and payment to suppliers and contractors stood at $ 272.5 (Di Giuli and Kostovetsky 2014). Sustainability report also incorporate target in relation to some social aspect such as total recordable injury frequency rate.

Interpreting the Sandfire’s Phase of sustainability

A wide range of community based charities and organizations is contributed by Sandfire and organization has joined as community partners in forces with shooting stars in year 2017. The cost of role of organization including health, well-being activity cost and funding of employment of a new shooting star program coordinator is assisted by such partner. In relation to recognition of indigenous, employment and training. The jurisdiction are in which organization operates has conducted survey over 75 Aboriginal heritage on the tenements of company. Land access agreement has delivered benefits to the surrounding communities and member of native Title claimant group. At Doolgunna project, numerous cross-culture work group have been held by Sandfire. Organization has directly employed three people from aboriginal workforce for June 30 in year 2017.  5.7% of the total workforce represents people from aboriginal group (sandfire.com.au 2017). Quality people have been attracted and retained in the organization and it is ensured that all employees are treated with dignity, respect by recognizing the importance of value.

There has been increased use of copper in the business that has been used for meeting the goal of reducing emission of carbon and objectives of meeting energy efficiency. A whole of business approach is applied by Sandfire in all risk categories such as safety, health, governance, environmental and social risk. Risk framework of organization is aligned with the international standard of managing risk that is ISO standard 31000:2009.

The process of reporting has been additionally improved for enabling monitoring of risks, critical control and hazards and in a better way. Organization has participated in carbon disclosure project since year 2015 and Sandfire has become the finalist for “Best Climate Disclosure By a New Australian Company”.

The GRI content index of Sandfire Resources incorporates displaying of G4 indicators and their description of separate pages. General standard disclosure of organization in their GRI index involves structure of governance, external assurance and ethics and integrity concerning ethics, principles, values, standard, code of ethics and code of conduct. There has not been sufficient information on external assurance and the governance structure in displayed in the annual report of organization. Code of conduct, code of ethics, standards, principles and values are displayed in the area of Sandfire code of conduct and values. Some of specific standard disclosures in the GRI content index of Sandfire involves criteria of economic, environmental, social, human rights, society.

Human rights concern of organization was displayed in the sustainability report and the action involved development of grievance mechanism procedures and open dialogue about sustainability performance is enhanced and concerns of stakeholders are voiced by giving transparency and internal management. Regarding environmental, the aspect of biodiversity is managed thorough the monitoring and minimizing the potential impact of operations on biodiversity. Assessment of environment of suppliers does not take into account material issues. Organization has not taken any effort to minimize the negative impact of supply chain on environment.  Data has not been collected from suppliers on the impact of environment. For the material aspect of employees, the return to data work is not available. Remuneration data table for men and women is displayed by organization. Data regarding labour practices negative impact and percentage of new suppliers that were screened under current labour practices are not available (Amran et al. 2014).

Six phases of organizational sustainability

Sufficient information of material aspect of economic are displayed in sustainability report that incorporates discussion of risk and opportunities related to climatic change, management approach disclosure and sufficient disclosure of negative and positive economic impact have been discussed. Regarding energy aspect of environment, scope 3 emissions are not recorded and information has been displayed on energy consumption reduction inside and outside organization and energy intensity (Dias et al. 2017).

Sustainability report of Sandfire does not provide concise disclosure on approach of management items relating to environmental aspects that should be outlined.  The assessment of risk management procedures incorporating human rights are not described using the industry guidance and practices. However, the disclosure of information in relating to appropriate guidelines of sustainability is provided in the report. Users of sustainability report would find it easy to locate any part of report that are relevant to particular guidelines. This can be explained with the help of instance from the sustainability report of the current year. Planning of mine closure is aligned with mine closure guidelines issued by Department of Western Australia of Mines and petroleum that would assist in addressing all the opportunities and issues of current mine closure plan in 2021 (Filatotchev and Nakajima 2014). The sustainability of operations of environment is managed by using environment management system that is supported by guidelines, policies and practices of standard work. In order to ensure that transition of graduate is done smoothly into business, organization aligns to professional development for graduate guidelines.

Australian quality reporting comparison since 2014 ASX 3^rd Edition:

Wesfarmers is committed to respecting the biodiversity by adhering to relevant construction, planning and building codes and several regulations.

The sustainability program of Westfield Corporation focuses on the performance of environment along with the engagement of community in the sustainable operations of business. Over the past several years through the sustainability programs, organization has increasingly sought to better understand the impact of their business activities on social, economic and environmental performance. In recent years, Westfield has begins to report externally and seek external assurance on their sustainability performances through key performance indicators across all the aspects. Currently, focus of Westfield on environment management is on usage of water, CGH emission and waste in a GHG inventory. Organization has employed global best practices in management of calculation, measurement and reporting of its GHG inventory (Dhaliwal et al. 2014). Reviewing of methodologies and standard is done each year against any application of local reporting. In terms of health and safety aspect concerning well-being of employees and communities as a whole, safety performance is a priority that has two indicator of measurement such as independent contractors and safety performance of their employees.

There are various ways in which the activities of Wesfarmers impact the communities and they have significant positive impact on Australian economy. Organization has made payment to its suppliers along with wages and salaries to the employees. Reporting period in the current year does not have incurred any significant fines for non-compliance and non-monetary sanctions with environmental regulations and laws. Waste reduction helps in creating business and environmental benefits to the divisions. Throughout the product life cycle, waste is delivered to recycle. Sustainability of material issues of each division is done by adopting various sustainability efforts such as launching awareness campaign about water usage and increasing water management visibility. Organization participated in Forest survey and carbon disclosure project that helps in improving their sustainability performance (Servaes and Tamayo 2013).

Areas of improved sustainability performance

Wesfarmers and Westfield Corporation is engaged in the sustainability reporting as against other countries. With regarding to Australian companies such as Westfield group, the score is below 67% to 100% that has been achieved by most of companies in terms of economic aspect. Westfield has achieved a score of 11%. That is significantly lower as against Wesframers and other companies that have higher coverage percentage.  In terms of environmental aspect, Westfield has achieved lower percentage of 17% and the coverage is exceptionally lower as compared to other companies.  Wesfarmers has coverage percentage of 57% that is considerably higher than Westfield Corporation. Again, Westfield has lowest coverage in social aspect with percentage of 23%. In relation to social aspect, coverage of Australian companies is lying between 10% to 98%. Westfield group has lowest coverage. In terms of social aspect, Westfield has lower coverage of 18% as against Wesfarmers. Coverage of Wesfarmers in terms of social aspect is lying between 45% and 75% (Devinney et al. 2013). Therefore, the coverage of Westfield Corporation in terms of all the aspect is significantly lower as against Wesfarmers.

The global reporting initiative has assessed the sustainability report of Wesfarmers limited to B+ application level. On other hand, the assessment of sustainability reporting of Westfield Corporation has been given C.

Wesfarmers is proactively committed in managing the activities and endeavours to improve their performance in sustainable way. Organization strives continuously improve their performance by incorporating some of the principles relating to environment, social, community, governance, people in their operations. Organization has made effort to reduce the intensity of carbon in environment and thereby improving the resilience of business to climatic change. In the areas of waste management, Wesfarmers strives to reduce the use of water and waste fill management. Sourcing of suppliers is done in a peaceful way by incorporating ethical principles. Workplace receives strong attention to make it safer and providing opportunities to employees to develop their career and enhance the job performance (Mason and Simmons 2014).

Westfield Corporation on other hand had made several progress in their sustainability reporting in terms of economic, social and environmental aspects. Organization is focused on creating great experiences to their stakeholders by making enhancement in their capabilities sand resources. They have incorporated several steps in their corporate sustainability reporting that embeds sustainability factors such as economic, social and environment. In year 2016, sustainability reporting of organization is done by building bread band length of sustainability team. Sustainability reporting has been improved by implementing the initiatives and by obtaining assurance from third parties (ArAs 2016). Stakeholder engagement is another area that has made the sustainability reporting better as they are able to address the concerns themselves. Sustainability issues of organization have been identified by taking the third party guidance such as GRI G4. Westfield has sustainability pillar by making improvement in environment, social and economic well-being of people. Business model of organization is such that the impact of their operations on environment has been minimized by incorporating technology, innovation, procedures and process in their life cycle (Carroll et al. 2016).

In case of Westfield Corporation, the Global reporting initiative has placed materiality at the forefront of the reporting process. Material issues have been developed for the purpose of managing sustainability and aligning with the guidelines of GRI. The environment activities are regulated by paying attention to consumption of energy, waste management and biodiversity. Social activities involve creation of job and entrepreneurial support. Organization intends to build committees by proving them education, training and mentoring (Kim et al. 2014). The commitment of organization toward the social responsibility is done by way of mentoring and training communities and various programs under this attempt were provided with many rewards. The charitable donation policies of Westfield is well established. They intend to serve the communities by providing them with positive economic well-being and the analysis of economic is done under wider basis by incorporating GRI guidelines. In the market place, economic value is created and participants are supported in the market place for starting up business in retail technology. Direct economic value is generated by way of revenue generation standing at US $ 1818.9 million (Westfield.interactiveinvestorreports.com 2017). Economic value of generated by each of the centres if Westfield by making direct and indirect employment opportunities, producing investment opportunities, facilitating motivation and enhancing surrounding infrastructure. One of the part of framework of risks management approach is the assessment of material economic environment.

Now looking the sustainability reporting of Wesfarmers group in relation to GRI guidelines

The supply chain of Wesfarmers is sourced in economic, social and environmental friendly way. Energy target program of organization incorporates economic and social benefits and the organization is making investment in managing climatic change that has provided with environmental, social and economic benefits. Wesfarmers have been taking continuous effort in minimizing the impact of carbon footprint and encouraging customers and community to do the same. Organization has been sourcing products from resale areas that has helped in creating economic benefits and providing products to customer at affordable prices (sustainability.wesfarmers.com.au 2016).  They have been making continuous investment in communities’ initiatives and thereby linking to social and economic outcomes. Significant economic, social and environment benefits have been delivered by proactively managing the risks.   Activities of organization incorporates sustainable actions that helps in bringing economic sustainable and viability to business. Some of the social activities for delivering social benefits to organizations involves creating diverse and equal working opportunities, procurement and investment services and adoption of measures that helps in delivering benefits to communities (Filatotchev and Stahl 2015).  

In this particular part, it is required to form an opinion to Green As superannuation management fund on the investment to be done in the above three discussed organization based on their quality of sustainability reporting. Separate conclusion have been done for Part A and for Part B.

In part A, quality of sustainability reporting of Sandfire Resources NL has been done for two consecutive year. Sustainability phase of the organization has been discussed by interpreting different phases and it was ascertained that in the current scenario, Sandfire is in efficiency phase of sustainability and are striving for sustainability productivity phase. Furthermore, they have covered most of areas as per GFI guidelines and some of the aspects are not involved and there is unavailability of data that leads to displaying of insufficient information that makes it difficult for users to compare the performance between other companies (Baumann-Pauly et al. 2013). However, the overall sustainability performance of Sandfire Corporation is aligned with the GRI application level. There are few aspects in which the organisation has not performed well in the current year, although there has been improvement in the current year sustainability performance.  

In part B, comparison between the sustainability report of two organizations that is Wesfarmers and Westfield has been done in terms of different sustainability aspects such as social, economic and environment aspect. Information generated by the sustainability report of both the organization in terms of GRI guidelines depicts that the performance of Wesfarmers has outperformed Westfield Corporation. This is evident from GRI application level of both the organization and concerning this, Westfield Corporation coverage level in terms of all the sustainability aspects are considerably lower as against Wesfarmers.  The GRI application level of Westfield Corporation stood at C while that of Wesfarmers Group stood at B+ level (Young and Thyil 2014). This plus sign is indicative of the fact that disclosure of sustainability reporting has been assured externally. On other hand, disclosure of sustainability reporting of Westfield Corporation has not been assured externally. It is required as per GRI guidelines that therefore, considering the criteria of general application level requires organization to have an assurance of an opinion of self-declaration. From the above analysis, it can be concluded that the disclosure of sustainability reporting by Wesfarmers is lying between advanced reporters and new beginners. On other hand, Westfield sustainability reporting disclosure has sought external assurance in some recent times. Therefore, it is said that Wesfarmers sustainability reporting is superior as against Westfield Corporation. It is because Wesfarmers have incorporated some of additional requirement and guidelines of GRI framework and have embraced seeking external assurance prior to Westfield Corporation (Chin et al. 2013).

From the above analysis and discussion of the quality of sustainability reporting of Sandfire Resources, Westfield Corporation and Wesfarmers Group that later is more superior in terms of sustainability. Wesfarmers has better and superior sustainability reporting compared to Westfield Corporation and Sandfire Resources. Wesfarmers strives to carry out their business activities in sustainable way as possible and they intend to form sustainability as their core business strategy. Therefore, it is recommended to Green As superannuation management fund to make investment in Wesfarmers followed by SandFire Resources NL.

Reflective Journal of personal development 

I was really excited to undertake the project on quality of sustainability reporting for companies such as Sandfire Resources, Wesfarmers Limited and Westfield Corporation. In the Part A, I compared sustainability aspects of Sandfire Resources for the year 2015 and 2016. I found out that there was improvement by the year 2016 where the company incorporated some of the additional GRI guidelines. In this part, sustainability reporting as well as disclosure analysis help in comparing two sustainability reports and additional GRI guidelines. I could now integrate sustainability accounting reporting principles as well as practices that takes into account Global Reporting Initiative. The reporting context deal with activities relating to social, environment as well as governance that are properly analyzed in the given study

In the Part B, I compared quality of sustainability between the companies such as Wesfarmers Limited and Westfield Corporation. As per GRI application level, the rank of Westfield is C and that of Wesfarmers Limited is B+. On comparing both the companies, I found that Wesfarmers Limited has better rank. The percentage of scores for Westfield in relation to GRI application level is significantly lower than Wesfarmers Limited. The sustainability area covered by Westfield is small and this made Wesfarmers better in all aspects.

In the Part C, I concluded the study based on the analysis undertaken by me under Part A and Part B. In these parts, I compared sustainability aspects based on rank and scores under GRI disclosures and found out that Wesfarmers was far better as compared to Sandfire Resources and Westfield Corporation.

By this analysis, I recommend that it will be wise decision to invest in Wesfarmers Limited as it has higher rank and score in comparison with other companies. After Wesfarmers Limited, I think Sandfire Resources will be better for investment purpose by individuals.

I received constant guidance from my lecturer who helped me in every possible ways whenever I went for any assistance. Our lecturer taught us the subjects in such as an interesting way that I understood the subjects and that helped me while preparing the present study. I was able to compare among these companies from the aspect of sustainability and additional GRI guidelines. During initial stage, I found difficulty to plan with the project on where to start and what to start at beginning. Later, I got accustomed with the facts and start planning with the project in a systematic way. I gained lot of knowledge at the time of preparing the project and I believe that learning can be done at any stage of life as it is an ongoing process. Now, I have proper understanding of theories as well as elements of Corporate Social Responsibility. I am able to understand the concepts, principles as well as stakeholders of corporate governance. My friends even helped me with any query that I had while preparing the project in the most appropriate way. Overall, the experience was excellent and would like to research more projects like this in future.

References list:

Amran, A., Lee, S.P. and Devi, S.S., 2014. The influence of governance structure and strategic corporate social responsibility toward sustainability reporting quality. Business Strategy and the Environment, 23(4), pp.217-235.

ArAs, G., 2016. A handbook of corporate governance and social responsibility. CRC Press.

Baumann-Pauly, D., Wickert, C., Spence, L.J. and Scherer, A.G., 2013. Organizing corporate social responsibility in small and large firms: Size matters. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(4), pp.693-705.

Bobby Banerjee, S., 2014. A critical perspective on corporate social responsibility: Towards a global governance framework. Critical perspectives on international business, 10(1/2), pp.84-95.

Boulouta, I. and Pitelis, C.N., 2014. Who needs CSR? The impact of corporate social responsibility on national competitiveness. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(3), pp.349-364.

Carroll, R.J., Primo, D.M. and Richter, B.K., 2016. Using item response theory to improve measurement in strategic management research: An application to corporate social responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 37(1), pp.66-85.

Cheng, B., Ioannou, I. and Serafeim, G., 2014. Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), pp.1-23.

Chin, M.K., Hambrick, D.C. and Treviño, L.K., 2013. Political ideologies of CEOs: The influence of executives’ values on corporate social responsibility. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2), pp.197-232.

Deng, X., Kang, J.K. and Low, B.S., 2013. Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder value maximization: Evidence from mergers. Journal of Financial Economics, 110(1), pp.87-109.

Devinney, T.M., Schwalbach, J. and Williams, C.A., 2013. Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance: Comparative perspectives. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21(5), pp.413-419.

Dhaliwal, D., Li, O.Z., Tsang, A. and Yang, Y.G., 2014. Corporate social responsibility disclosure and the cost of equity capital: The roles of stakeholder orientation and financial transparency. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 33(4), pp.328-355.

Di Giuli, A. and Kostovetsky, L., 2014. Are red or blue companies more likely to go green? Politics and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Financial Economics, 111(1), pp.158-180.

Dias, A., Rodrigues, L.L. and Craig, R., 2017. Corporate governance effects on social responsibility disclosures. Australasian Accounting Business & Finance Journal, 11(2).

Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S. and Ruiz, S., 2014. Commitment to corporate social responsibility measured through global reporting initiative reporting: Factors affecting the behavior of companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 81, pp.244-254.

Filatotchev, I. and Nakajima, C., 2014. Corporate governance, responsible managerial behavior, and corporate social responsibility: organizational efficiency versus organizational legitimacy?. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(3), pp.289-306.

Filatotchev, I. and Stahl, G.K., 2015. Towards transnational CSR. Corporate social responsibility approaches and governance solutions for multinational corporations. Organizational Dynamics, 44(2), pp.121-129.

Flammer, C. and Luo, J., 2017. Corporate social responsibility as an employee governance tool: Evidence from a quasi?experiment. Strategic Management Journal, 38(2), pp.163-183.

Flammer, C., 2015. Does corporate social responsibility lead to superior financial performance? A regression discontinuity approach. Management Science, 61(11), pp.2549-2568.

Globalreporting.org. (2017). [online] Available at: https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/G3.1-Guidelines-Incl-Technical-Protocol.pdf [Accessed 16 Oct. 2017].

Harjoto, M., Laksmana, I. and Lee, R., 2015. Board diversity and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(4), pp.641-660.

Hong, B., Li, Z. and Minor, D., 2016. Corporate governance and executive compensation for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(1), pp.199-213.

Ioannou, I. and Serafeim, G., 2015. The impact of corporate social responsibility on investment recommendations: Analysts’ perceptions and shifting institutional logics. Strategic Management Journal, 36(7), pp.1053-1081.

Jain, T. and Jamali, D., 2016. Looking inside the black box: The effect of corporate governance on corporate social responsibility. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 24(3), pp.253-273.

Jo, H., Song, M.H. and Tsang, A., 2016. Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder governance around the world. Global Finance Journal, 29, pp.42-69.

Khan, A., Muttakin, M.B. and Siddiqui, J., 2013. Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosures: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of business ethics, 114(2), pp.207-223.

Kim, Y., Li, H. and Li, S., 2014. Corporate social responsibility and stock price crash risk. Journal of Banking & Finance, 43, pp.1-13.

Mason, C. and Simmons, J., 2014. Embedding corporate social responsibility in corporate governance: A stakeholder systems approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(1), pp.77-86.

Sandfire.com.au. (2017). Annual Reports – Sandfire. [online] Available at: https://www.sandfire.com.au/investor/reports/annual-reports.html [Accessed 16 Oct. 2017].

Sandfire.com.au. (2017). Sustainability Report 2016. [online] Available at: https://www.sandfire.com.au/images/online-publications/sustainability-report-2016/index.html [Accessed 16 Oct. 2017].

Servaes, H. and Tamayo, A., 2013. The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm value: The role of customer awareness. Management Science, 59(5), pp.1045-1061.

Sierra?García, L., Zorio?Grima, A. and García?Benau, M.A., 2015. Stakeholder engagement, corporate social responsibility and integrated reporting: an exploratory study. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22(5), pp.286-304.

sustainability.wesfarmers.com.au. (2017). Global Reporting Initiative – Wesfarmers. [online] Available at: https://2016.sustainability.wesfarmers.com.au/databank/global-reporting-initiative/ [Accessed 16 Oct. 2017].

Tai, F.M. and Chuang, S.H., 2014. Corporate social responsibility. Ibusiness, 6(03), p.117.

Westfield.interactiveinvestorreports.com. (2017). Westfield Group – Sustainability. [online] Available at: https://westfield.interactiveinvestorreports.com/sustainability [Accessed 16 Oct. 2017].

Westfieldcorp.com. (2017). [online] Available at: https://www.westfieldcorp.com/assets/doc/WF_Sustainability-Report-2017_ART_170330-ff0d0bd724.pdf [Accessed 16 Oct. 2017].

Young, S. and Thyil, V., 2014. Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance: Role of context in international settings. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(1), pp.1-24.