Description
This paper analyses changes in corporate environmental reporting practices among large Finnish firms in
the past five years. Using content analysis of annual reports, we analyzed the willingness of firms to
disclose environmental information in the years 1987 and 1992. Our sample consisted of 75 Finnish
corporations drawn from the largest firms in the most environmentally sensitive industries. Our results
indicate marked changes in environmental reporting practices between 1987 and 1992. In 1987,
Pergamon Accounting, Orgnnfzatfom and Society, Vol. 20, No. 6, pp. 457-466, 1995
Copyright 0 1995 Fkvier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. AU rights reserved
0361-36fW95 $9.50+0.00
0361-3682(94)0003SfS
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING IN FINLAND: A NOTE ON THE USE OF ANNUAL
REPORTS*
MIKAEL NISKALA
Uni versi ty of Lupl and
and
MICHAEL PRETES
Uni versi ty of Cal gary
Abstract
This paper analyses changes in corporate environmental reporting practices among large Finnish firms in
the past five years. Using content analysis of annual reports, we analyzed the willingness of firms to
disclose environmental information in the years 1987 and 1992. Our sample consisted of 75 Finnish
corporations drawn from the largest firms in the most environmentally sensitive industries. Our results
indicate marked changes in environmental reporting practices between 1987 and 1992. In 1987, slightly
over one quarter of the firms analysed disclosed environmental information in their annual reports, while
in 1992 this number had risen to nearly one half of firms. Most of this disclosure was in qualitative, rather
than in quantitative or financial, form. The results arc consistent with earlier studies, which indicated that
enviromnental reporting was a feature of firms in certain industrial Sectors. We conclude by noting the
influence of environmentalism on Finnish corporate environmental reporting, policy and accounting
practice.
Corporate social and environmental reporting
are not new phenomena. The willingness of
corporations to report social impacts has been
addressed in a number of studies (Lessem,
1977; Ernst & Ernst, 1978; Rey, 1978; Brockh-
off, 1979; Dierkes, 1979; Majala, 1979; Schreu-
der, 1979, 1981; Them&se, 1980; Singh &
Ahuja, 1983; Teoh & Thong, 1984; Guthrie
& Mathews, 1985; Gray et al ., 1987; Guthrie
& Parker, 1989; Gray, 1990; Yamagami &
Kokuba, 1991). These studies indicate that
reporting practices vary in different countries
and that reporting is mainly qualitative. By the
end of the 1980s the emphasis on social issues
shifted more from employee information and
value added statements (e.g. BurcheIl et aZ.,
1985) to environmental information. At the
same time there has been an increasing trend
towards greater coverage of environmental
issues in annual reports (Harte & Owen,
1991, 1992).
The United Nations Commission on Transna-
tional Corporations - Intergovernmental
Working Group of Experts on International
Standards of Accounting and Reporting @AR)
made detailed recommendations for disclosing
environmental information in 1991 (United
Nations, 1991). After publishing these recom-
l We thank Veli-Pekka Saajo for help with the data collection, Mikko Puhakka and Virpi Virkkunen for helpful comments on
the text, and Pekka Vasari for statistical help. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the European Accounting
Association annual meeting, Venice, Italy, 6-8 April 1994.
457
458 M. NISKALA and M. PRETES
mendations ISAR launched an international
environmental reporting survey (United
Nations, 1992) that showed a high level of
awareness in environmental matters, though
only a few corporations complied with the
ISAR recommendations. Environmental disclo-
sure seems to be primarily qualitative in nature.
Legal requirements to report environmental
information in Canada and the United States
were reflected especially in quantitative and
monetary environmental reporting (KPMG
1993, reported in Gray et al, 1993).
Earlier studies (see United Nations, 1992;
Kirkman & Hope, 1992) support the argument
that environmental disclosure is mainly a phe-
nomenon of large corporations (Trotman &
Bradley, 1981; Cowen et al., 1987). Environ-
mental reporting also seems to be more widely
practised in certain industries, such as forestry
(United Nations, 1992). When comparing
results from different countries some differ-
ences were found (Guthrie & Parker, 1989;
Roberts, 1991, 1992; KPMG, 1993). The high-
est levels of disclosure appear to be among
German and Swedish corporations (Roberts,
1991, 1992). Although the above results tend
to be mutually supportive, it is difficult to con-
clude anything on an international basis. The
subjective nature of much of the qualitative
environmental material makes analysis proble-
matic.
Environmental reporting in annual reports is
based either on legal requirements or the
voluntary response of corporations. The legal
basis for annual reporting in Finland is well
developed. The legal base of accounting and
corporate reporting in Finland is defined in
the Accounting Act (Kirjanpitolaki), the
Accounting Ordinance (Kirjanpitoasetus), the
Companies Act (Osakeyhtiolaki) and the Secu-
rities Markets Act (Arvopaperimarkkinalaki).
Finnish accounting practice departs from typi-
cal legalistic patterns due in part at least to the
theoretical background of accounting. The the-
oretical background to the Finnish Accounting
Act and Company Income Tax Law is the so-
called revenue-expenditure theory that was
developed in the 1940s and 1950s by Martti
Saario (Saario, 1945, 1959). The information
needs of all interest groups have been purport-
edly taken into consideration when Finnish
accounting regulations have been reformed
by authorities at different times.
Legal requirements for environmental report-
ing include, for instance, the treatment of con-
tingent liabilities. The issue of contingent
liabilities caused by environmental obligations
has been under discussion in the United States,
Canada and ISAR (Newell et al., 1990; United
Nations, 1990; Rubenstein, 1992). Obligations
caused by environmental contamination and
possible clean-up costs of polluted areas, if
accrued, can cause significant expenditures
for corporations in the future. Following the
reform of accounting legislation in 1992, finan-
cial reporting requirements in Finland moved
closer to European Community directives (see
R&y, 1992). The Accounting Act was amended
to require provisions to be made in the
accounts, as liabilities and charges, for all those
clearly definable losses or debts which, at the
date of the balance sheet, are either likely or
certain to be incurred, but uncertain as to
amount or as to the date on which they will
arise (Accounting Act, Ch. 3, Sect. lba). These
previsions will, in appropriate circumstances,
Include environmental contingent liabilities.
Finnish annual reports should be prepared in
accordance with “good bookkeeping practice”
and are required by law to contain information
about such matters as are important for evalu-
ating the state of a company and the results of
its operations and which have not been eluci-
dated in the income statement or balance
sheet, as well as events of major significance
to the company even if they have occurred
after the conclusion of the accounting period
(Companies Act, Ch. 11, Sect. 9). Furthermore,
the corporate annual report usually includes
more Information than would be demanded
by legal requirements. This kind of information
is a voluntary activity and purely a matter of
corporate policy. Environmental reporting is a
typical example of the additional information
that corporations are willing to provide to
their shareholders.
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING IN FINLAND 459
METHOD
Based on guidelines and categories estab
lished by the United Nations (United Nations,
1992), we selected nine industrial categories
with a direct or significant environmental
impact: chemicals and plastics, construction,
energy production, electricity and electronics,
forestry and forest products, industrial con-
glomerates, metals and metal products, oil trad-
ing, and transportation. The categories were
selected from a classification used by the
Finnish business magazine Talouseldmii (the
Finnish equivalent of Business Week or For-
tune). From within these categories we
selected the top 100 firms based on sales. The
Talouseldmd list includes both listed and
unlisted tirms. In order to achieve an identical
sample for comparison, we disqualified tirms
that were not listed in both 1987 and 1992.
These years were selected because 1992 is
the most recent available data, and 1987 is
the year of the Brundtland Report (United
Nations, 1987) and by extension the begin-
ning of the environmental movement of the
late 1980s; moreover, it also provided an inter-
val of five years in which tirms could initiate
environmental reporting.
A very small number of firms did not publish
an annual report, and these firms were likewise
excluded from the sample. Using this method,
we arrived at a total sample of 75, representing
the largest firms, both listed and unlisted, in the
most environmentally sensitive industries. The
sample includes firms with a majority of state
ownership (traded and untraded) as well as
firms with a majority of foreign ownership
(traded subsidiary fhms). Firms that are largely
privately owned are also included if they pub
lish financial statements.
Using a recording instrument’ with yes/no
answers to standardize data collecting, we ana-
lysed general environmental disclosure, envir-
onmental policy disclosure, and disclosure of
financial environmental information. This infor-
mation was gathered using content analysis
(see Guthrie & Mathews, 1985). Following
the method developed by Guthrie (Guthrie &
Parker, 1989) each annual report was
reviewed to determine whether or not it con-
tained any qualitative, quantitative or financial
reporting. Qualitative information includes all
verbal disclosure. Quantitative information
refers to environmental measures such as emis
sion levels and forest materials consumed in
production by volume. Financial information
includes all environmental information
expressed in monetary terms. We based our
analysis on the original Finnish language ver-
sions of the annual reports. We also tested
the statistical significance of the reporting
changes using a McNemar test (Katz & John-
son, 1985). The results of the one-tailed signi
cance test are indicated in the tables.
Restricting a study to annual reports only
may give an incomplete view of overall report-
ing (Zeghal & Ahmed, 1990). Nevertheless, the
annual report may still be considered as repre-
senting a decision made by corporate managers
about what kind and amount of information
they are willing to disclose.
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING IN
FINLAND
Table 1 summarizes the results of the study,
indicating the total number of corporations
reporting at least some information in the
years 1987 and 1992 and the results by sectors.
The results show a significant increase in
total environmental disclosure from 1987 to
1992. The increase in total disclosure was
80% and by 1992 48% of the corporations dis
closed at least some environmental informa-
tion. The major increase was in qualitative
reportlng, but 20% of the corporations
reported some quantitative and financial envir-
’ Copies of the rccotding instrument (which broadly follows the methodology established by Ernst & Ernst, 1978), in
Finnish or in Einglish translation, arc available from the authors.
460 M. NISRALA and M. PRETES
TABLE 1. Environmental disclosure by Finnish corporations
General Qualitative Quantitative Financial
1987 1992
Percent Percent
26.7% 48.0%
(20) (36)
1992
Percent
48.0%
(36)
1987 1992
Percent Percent
18.7% 20.0%
(14) (15)
1987 1992
Percent Percent
13.3% 20.0%
(10) (15)
Percent
22.7%
(17)
Total di scl osure
(75)
Change
Significance (one-tail)
By sectors
Chemicals and plastics (3)
Construction (10)
Electricity and electronics
(6)
Energy production (6)
Forestry and forest
products (6)
Industrial conglomerates
(19)
Metals and metal products
(14)
Oil trading (4)
Transportation (7)
0.0005 0.0001 0.5000 0.0313
66.7%
20.0%
0.0%
66.7%
10.0%
66.7%
66.7%
20.0%
0.0%
66.7%
10.0%
66.7%
66.7% 66.7%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
33.3% 33.3%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
83.3%
66.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 83.8%
66.7% 83.3%
33.3% 66.7%
31.6% 10.5% 31.6% 10.5% 5.3% 10.5% 5.3% 5.3%
0.0% 35.7% 0.0% 35.7% 0.0% 7.1% 0.0% 14.3%
50.0%
0.0%
100.0%
28.6%
50.0%
0.0%
100.0%
28.6%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
25.0% 25.0%
0.0% 0.0%
metal products sector, which did not disclose
any financial environmental information in
1987, whereas in 1992 14.3% of the firms
(two companies) in this sector disclosed some
financial environmental information.
The results in Table 2 indicate that the
annual review of the board of directors, opera-
tions review, and separate environmental sec-
tion were the major forms of disclosure.
Separate environmental sections were usually
less than one page of the annual report, but
included descriptions of corporate environ-
mental policy, plans and legal requirements
for environmental protection. Quantitative
reporting of environmental impacts or fman-
cial disclosure were not often disclosed in sepa-
rate reports.
We also considered the corporations’ activ-
ities in environmental policy issues. Environ-
mental auditing is a relatively new concept,
the importance of which has increased espe-
cially among the companies that are active in
environmental disclosure. Environmental audit-
onmental information. The differences for both
general and qualitative reporting changes are
statistically significant.
The disclosure results by industry support
the argument that environmental disclosure
appears to be industrially related. Industries
with higher levels of disclosure include energy
production, forestry and forest products; also
oil trading corporations, which increased
from 50 to 100%. Construction is the only
industry in which environmental disclosure
has decreased.* In 1987 three sectoral cate-
gories (electricity and electronics, metals and
metal products, and transportation) did not dis-
close any environmental information, but in
1992 these same sectors disclosed at least
some information. An examination of the quan-
titative reporting indicates that disclosure in
this form is characteristic of only certain sec-
tors; these same sectors have a high level of
disclosure in general. Financial disclosure has
largely remained constant between 1987 and
1992, with the exception of the metals and
* This decrease is due to the active public discussion on safety and working conditions that took place in Finland in the
1980s which prompted many fnms to report on workplace safety during that period.
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING IN FINLAND 461
TARLE 2. Use of different parts of annual reports in environmental disclosure
1987 1992 Change
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Significance (one-tail)
Director’s report 10 13.3% 17 22.7% 0.0330
Annual review 13 17.3% 25 33.3% 0.002 1
Future views 1 1.3% 7 9.3% 0.0160
Financial statements 3 4.0% 4 5.3% 0.5000
Notes of account 2 2.7% 5 6.7% 0.1250
Operations/branches 10 13.3% 24 32.0% 0.0003
Separate report 11 14.7% 21 28.0% 0.0010
TABLE 3. Disclosure of corporate environmental policy activities and financial environmental information
1987 1992 Change
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Significance (one-tail)
Pol i cy acti vi ti es
Environmental audit 3 4.0% 8 10.7% 0.0900
Environmental policy 7 9.3% 23 30.7% 0.0000
Commitment to international 1 1.3% 14 18.7% 0.0001
environmental programmes
Fi nanci al i nformati on
Operating expenditures
Capital expenditures
Provisions
Assets
Contingent liabilities
6 8.0% 10 13.3% 0.1100
9 12.0% 15 20.0% 0.0160
2 2.7% 2 2.7% 0.5000
3 4.0% 3 4.0% 0.5000
2 2.7% 4 5.3% 0.2500
ing is also spreading to new industries, such as
electricity and electronics. Establishing a cor-
porate environmental policy or signing a pub
lit environmental charter are popular today. As
seen in Table 3, 30% of corporations have
developed their own policy for environmental
protection. Most international environmental
protection programmes have been established
recently. In 1987 only a few corporations
talked about them, but in 1992 almost 20% of
the corporations mentioned some of the inter-
national programmes, of which the Interna-
tional Chamber of Commerce’s Business
Charter for Sustainable Development and the
Chemical Industries Association Responsible
Care Programme were mentioned repeatedly.
By 1992 environmental policies were already
routine in some corporations:
Recognizing our responsibility, taking the initiative, and
minimizing risks have formed part of Neste’s operating
principles for a number of years. The corporation
believes that the success of a company like Neste is
increasingly dependent on the social acceptability of
its operations. Development work in this area in Neste
takes place within the framework of the Responsible
Care Programme (Neste, Annual Report, 1992, p. 47).
Some corporations reported on the potential
impact of forthcoming environmental legisla-
tion, such as the proposed Environmental
Impact Assessment Law. Several firms recog-
nised European Union (EU) environmental pol-
icy and plans as a pressure source, even though
Finland is not, at the time of writing, a member
of the EU.
Table 4 shows in greater detail the areas of
environmental protection activities, Three
major areas in disclosure were environmental
impacts of products and production, air pollu-
tion and liquid waste. In 1987 none of the cor-
porations reported any plans involving
recycling, but by 1992 16% of the corporations
identified recycling as an important area. By
1992 the energy savings and efficiency cate-
gory has become a more important area of cor-
porate activity. Reporting of environmental
462 M. NISRALA and M. PRETES
TABLE 4. Areas of environmentaI protection activities: investments, poky and pIans (quaRtative); and reporting of
environmentaI Impacts (quantitative)
1987 1992 Change
Air pollution
Qualitative
Quantitative
Solid waste
Qualitative
Quantitative
Liqufd waste
Qualitative
Quantitative
Recycling
Qualitative
Quantitative
Wstr
QuaIitative
Quantitative
Products and
production
Qualitative
Quantitative
Energy savfng and
eficiency
QuaIitative
Quantitative
Frequency Percent
12 16.0%
4 5.3%
6 8.0%
2 2.7%
10 13.3%
2 2.7%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
10 13.3%
1 1.3%
14 18.7%
11 14.7%
7 9.3%
10 13.3%
Frequency Percent Signiiicance (one-tall)
21 28.0% 0.0060
6 8.0% 0.3130
17 22.7% 0.0040
3 4.0% 0.5000
19 25.3% 0.0020
6 8.0% 0.1100
12 16.0% 00003
2 2.7% 0.2500
11 14.7% 0.5000
3 4.0% 0.2500
31 41.3% 0.0001
12 16.0% 0.5000
19 25.3% 0.0003
12 16.0% 0.2500
impacts primarily considers information given was disclosed. One problem in measuring the
by the corporations about their emissions and environmental operating expenditures is that
use of natural resources. The environmental the definition of these kinds of costs is not
impacts connected to products and produc- clear. In this study we accounted expenditures
tion and energy savings and efficiency were as operating environmental costs when they
major reported areas. were connected to the accounting period con-
The results of financial disclosure of environ- cerned and were separated from environmen-
mental issues are shown in Table 3. Financial tal investments. The disclosure of these costs
environmental disclosure seems to be the most was not as intensive as the disclosure of envir-
effective method concerning the reporting of onmental investments.3
environmental investments and operating There are few examples of valuing the envir-
expenditures resulting from environmental onment apropos natural resources. Envlron-
protection activities. Of the corporations, 20% mental assets valuation may be based on the
disclosed environmental investments in 1992. natural resource stocks that are under the con-
The disclosure is not very systematic and in trol of corporations and that are also intended
most cases it was only the total amount of for commercial use, e.g. peat, ore and timber
environmental protection investments that stocks. No accounting policy for these assets
a According to the Company Income Tax Law it was previously possible to form a special reserve for nuclear waste
disposal Nowadays the corporations involved in nuclear energy production are required by the Nuclear Energy Law to
make provisions for nuclear waste disposal costs and record this amount to the nuclear waste disposal fund that is
administered by the government. No provisions made voluntariIy for environmentaI obIigations were found in this study.
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING IN FINLAND 463
was disclosed in the sample, but according to
the Accounting Act and the Company Income
Taxation Law, valuation should have been
based on historical costing. Instead, the annual
reports noted that depreciation of these assets
was made using substance depreciation, mean-
ing depreciation based on consumption of the
natural resource stock. Thls accounting policy
is directly ln line with traditional asset account-
ing practices.
Environmental contingent Liabilities dis-
closed were legally required provisions for
the costs resultlng from nuclear waste disposal
or safeguards for these purposes. Contingent
llablllties were disclosed only if they were
required by legislation. Voluntary measure-
ment and reporting of environmental obliga-
tions, as ln the case of BSO/Orlgln ln the
Netherlands (BSO/Orlgln, 1991), was not
found ln the Finnish sample. When examlnlng
financial environmental disclosure compared
to the more sophisticated ideas of envlromnen-
tal accounting (such as environmental accounts
or accounting for sustainable costs), the results
are not impressive. Despite a few exceptions
based on legally required disclosure of contln-
gent liabilities, there were no real environmen-
tal liabilities measured or reported or anything
said about potential clean-up costs or actual
contamination of the environment as a conse-
quence of corporate activities. Instead, an
increasing trend was found ln disclosing envlr-
onmental protection investments and expendi-
tures that are captured by traditional financial
recording and fit the existing framework for
financial reporting.
DISCUSSION
The Brundtland Report popularized the con-
cept of “sustainable development”, which it
delines as development that meets the needs
of the present generation without compromis-
ing the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs (United Nations, 1987). While
the report directed most of its recommenda-
tions to governments, it did note that private
firms play a role ln achieving sustainable devel-
opment. Specifically, industry needs to have a
broader awareness of environmental concerns
and its role wlthln them, rather than merely
complying with government directives. The
report also encouraged private tirms to
develop their own environmental policies
(United Nations, 1987, p. 223) and noted that
firms that have developed new technologies to
meet environmental standards are among the
most prosperous (United Nations, 1987, p.
212). Thus the Brundtland Report encourages
industries to become more environmentally
sensitive by noting that this is linked with
increased prosperity.
Further work by the United Nations (United
Nations, 1991) has produced a series of recom-
mendations for corporate disclosure. The UN
report, which was written as part of the ISAR
study, lists nine recommendations for envlron-
mental disclosure in the board of directors’
report and management discussion. These
recommendations include such things as envir-
onmental issues relevant to the firm, envlron-
mental policies adopted by the fum, goals,
targets, and improvements, compliance with
regulations, financial effects of environmental
protection measures, and the actual amounts
charged to operations and the amounts capita-
lized ln the reporting period. The UN report
further recommends disclosure in the notes
to financial statements, including reporting of
accounting practices in the notes, as well as
specific financial information about liabilities,
provisions, and reserves, and contingent llabil-
ities (if quantifiable), as these relate to environ-
mental measures (United Nations, 1991, pp.
19-21). Finnish firms evidenced only minimal
acceptance of these recommendations, provid-
ing primarily qualitative information, though
the reporting practices of Finnish lirms did
not differ greatly from the data on environmen-
tal reporting in other industrialized countries
(United Nations, 1992). As the report was
issued in 1991, it is perhaps too early to expect
adoption of all the UN recommendations.
Earlier studies evidenced that although the
majority of the corporations disclosed at least
464 M. NISKALA and M. PRETES
some environmental information, the level of
disclosure was generally low (Roberts, 1991,
1992). Finnish data indicate that environmen-
tal disclosure in Finland is not as common as in
other European countries. The disclosure level
has increased significantly from 1987 to 1992,
but still fewer than half of the corporations
were disclosing environmental information -
even though the sample was selected from
industries that tended to have the greatest
and most direct environmental impacts and
thus were expected to report some environ-
mental information.
The results are also in line with the ISAR
study, where disclosure was found to be quali-
tative in nature, covering in particular policies,
attitudes and descriptions of improvements in
certain areas. We found similar results in this
study. We emphasize that it was not the aim of
the study to evaluate or compare corporate
environmental performance. Instead we inves-
tigated what kind of environmental information
Finnish corporations are willing to disclose.
The study shows that most of the corporations
are capable of disclosing environmental infor-
mation and that a general environmental awa-
kening has occurred in industry. This is a
positive step towards the further development
of environmental accounting, but we are still
waiting for the implementation of corporate
environmental accounting or accounting for
sustainable development.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brockhoff, K., A Note on External Social Reporting by German Companies: A Survey of 1973 Company
Reports, Accounl fng, Organfzal fons and Soci ety (1979) pp. 77-85.
BSO/Otigin, The 1990 Annual Report (1991).
Burchell, S., Clubb, C. & Hopwood, A., Accounting in its Social Context: Towards a History of Value
Added in the United Kingdom, Accounti ng, Organi zal fons and Soci ety (1985) pp. 381-413.
Cowen, S. S., Ferreri, L. B. & Parker, L. D., The Impact of Corporate Characteristics on Social Respon-
sibility Disclosure: A Typology and Frequency-based Analysis, Accounti ng, Organi zatfons and Society
(1987) pp. 111-122.
Dierkes, M., Corporate Social Reporting in Germany: Conceptual Developments and Practical Experi-
ence, Accounti ng, Organfzatfons and Soci ety (1979) pp. 87-107.
Ernst & Ernst, Social Responsfbfl i ty Di scl osure: 1978 Survey (Cleveland, OH: Ernst & Ernst, 1978).
Gray, R. H., Corporate Socfal Report&g by UK Compani es: A Cross-sectonal and Longfi udfnaf Anafysi s
- An I n@ri m Report. Paper presented to British Accounting Association. University of Dundee
(1990).
Gray, R. H., Bebbington, J. & Walters, D., Account&g for the Envi ronment (London: Paul Chapman,
1993).
Gray, R. H., Owen, D. L. & Maunders, K. T., Corporate Social Reporti ng: Accounti ng andAccounta&fl fty
(Englewood Cliis, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1987).
Guthrie, J. 8~ Mathews, M. R., Corporate Social Accounting in Australasia, Research i n Coqboraare Soda1
Performance and Poky (1985) pp. 251-277.
Guthrie, J. & Parker, L. D., Corporate Social Disclosure Practice: A Comparative International Analysis,
Advances i n Publ i c I nteresl Accounti ng (1989) pp. 67-93.
Harte, G. & Owen, D., Environmental Disclosure in the Annual Reports of British Companies: A Research
Note, Accountfng, Audi ti ng andAccoun~abfl f@J ournal (1991) pp. 51-61.
Harte, G. & Owen, D., Current Trends in the Reporting of Green Issues in the Annual Reports of United
Kingdom Companies, in Owen, D. L. (ed.), Green Repoti fng -Accountancy and the Chal l enge of the
Nfnel fes pp. 166-200 (London: Chapman & Hall, 1992).
Kirkman, P. & Hope, C., Environmental Disclosure in U.K. Company Annual Reports, Research Paper
number 6/92 (Cambridge University, 1992).
Katz, S. 8~ Johnson, N. L. (eds), EncycZopedfa of Statfstfcal Sciences, Vol. 5 (New York: John Wiley &
Sons, 1985).
KPMG, I #tematfonal Survey of Envfronmenl al Reporti ng (London: KPMG Peat Marwick, 1993).
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING IN FINLAND 465
Lessem, R., Corporate Social Reporting in Action: An EvaIuation of British, European and American
Practice, Accountfng, Organfzatfons and Soci ety (1977) pp. 279-194.
Ma@, R., Porssiyhtiiiiden suhtautuminen sosiaaIisten vaIkutusten raportointiin, Publications of the
Turku School of Economics. Series A-9: 1979.
Newell, G., Kreuze, J. & Newell, S., Accounting for Hazardous Waste, ManagementAccounti ng, pp. 58-
61 Nay 19!30).
FWy, P., Reforming Finnish Accounting Legislation, The European Accounti ng Revi ew (1992) pp. 413-
420.
Rey, F., Corporate Social Responsibility and Social Report@ in France, in Schoenfeld, H. (ed.), 7&e
Status of Socfal Reportfng fn Sel ected Countrfes (Urbana, I L: University of Illinois Press, 1978).
Roberta, C., EnvironmentaI Disclosures: A Note on Reporting Practices in Mainland Europe, Accountfng,
Audftfng and Accountabfl fty J ournal (1991) pp. 62-71.
Roberts, C., Environmental Disclosures in Corporate Annual Reports in Western Europe, in Owen, D. L.
(ed.), Green Reportfng - Accountancy and tbe Cbal i enge of tbe Nfnetfes, pp. 139-165 (London:
Chapman & Hall, 1992).
Rubenstein, D. B., Bridging Gap between Green Accounting and Black Ink, Accountfng, Organfzatfons
and Socfety (1992) pp. 501-508.
Saario, M., Reaffsofnttperfaate ja k~ytti i omafsuuden pofstot (Hel si nki : LiiketaIoustieteellisen tutkimus-
Iaitoksen julkaisuja 6, 1945).
Saario, M., Kftj anpfdon menc&do -teorfa (Keuruu: Otava, 1959).
Schreuder, H., Corporate Social Report@ in the Federal Republic of Germany: An Overview, Account-
fng, Organfzatfons and Socfety (1979) pp. 109-122.
Schreuder, H., Employees and the Corporate Social Reports - the Dutch Case. Accounti ng Reufew
(1981) pp. 294-308.
Singh, D. R. % Ahuja, J. M., Corporate Social Reporting in India, I nternatfonal J ournal of Accounting
Educatfon and Research (1983) pp. 151-169.
Teoh, H. Y. & Thong, G., Another Look at Corporate Social Responsibility and Reporting: An Empirical
Study in a Developing Country, Accounti ng, Ofganfzutfons and Soci ety (1984) pp. 189-206.
Theunisse, H., Corporate Social Reporting in Belgium, J ournal UEC (1980) pp. 206-211.
Trotman, K. T. & Bradley, G. W., Association between Social Responsibility Disclosure and Character-
istics of Companies, Accountfng, Ot ganf zat f ons and Socfety (1981) pp. 355-362.
United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (Brundtland
Report) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987).
United Nations Commission on Transnational Corporations. IntergovemmentaI Working Group of
Experts on International Standards of Accounting and Reporting, Information Disclosure relating to
EnvironmentaI Measures, Economic and Social Council (1990), VC. lO/AC.3/1990/5.
United Nations Commission on Transnational Corporations. IntergovemmentaI Working Group of
Experts on International Standards of Accounting and Reporting, Accounting for Environmental Pro
tection Measures, Economic and Social Council (1991). VC.lO/AC.3/1991/5.
United Nations Commission on Transnatlonal Corporations. Intergovernmental Working Group of
Experts on International Standards of Accounting and Reporting, Environmental Disclosures: Intema-
tional Survey of Corporate Reporting Practices, Economic and Social Council (1992). VC.lO/AC.3/
1992/3.
Yamagami, T. & Kokuba, K., A Note on Corporate Social Disclosure in Japan, Accountfng, Audftfng and
Accountabi l i ty J ournal (1991) pp. 32-39.
Zeghal, D. & Ahmed, S. A., Comparison of Social Responsibility Information Disclosure Media Used by
Canadian Finns, Accounti ng, Audfti ng and Accountabfl fty J ournal (1990) pp. 38-53.
466
M. NISKALA and M. PRRTES
APPENDIX: CORPORATIONS INCLUDED IN THE STUDY, BY SECTOR
Ckwmkals and plastics (3)
Kemira
KW-H-yhtym’6
Neste
C0nsrrucrlon (10)
Hartela
Lamin
Lemminkiben
Luja-Yhtiiit
Polar
Puolimatka
Ruola
Sat0
wo
I-IT-YhtymB
Electrfdty and electronics (6)
ABByhti6t
Ensto
Finvest
L M Rricsson
Nokia
vaisala
Energy production (6)
Eteti-Suomen Voima
Imatran Voima
Kemijoki
LounaisSuomen SIhk6
Pohjolan Voima
Teollisuuden Voima
I ndusfrfal conglomerates (19)
Amer
Asko
Asp0
Eka-yhtymi
GWS
Instrumentarium
Las& & Tikanoja
lnnen Tehtaat
Mercantile
Orion
Partek
Repola
Rettig
Siemens
Sponsor
Spontel
Tampella
Vapo
Wihuri
Metals and metal products (14)
Ahlsttim
Dalsbruk
Fiskars
Hackman
HollmiiR
Kone
Kuusakoski
Labsystems
oras
Outokumpu
Rautaruukki
Forestry and forest products (6)
Enso-Gutzeit
Kymmene
Kym
MetsUtto
sunila
Veitsiluoto
Sisu-Auto
Tunturipyiir;i
Valmet
OII fradfng (4)
Esso
Shell
Suomen Petrooli
Teboil
Transportation 0
Bika Line
EfoOh
FillMir
HuolintakeSkus
Pohjolan Liikenne
SF Line
Transfennica
Number of cases listed = 75
doc_786337195.pdf
This paper analyses changes in corporate environmental reporting practices among large Finnish firms in
the past five years. Using content analysis of annual reports, we analyzed the willingness of firms to
disclose environmental information in the years 1987 and 1992. Our sample consisted of 75 Finnish
corporations drawn from the largest firms in the most environmentally sensitive industries. Our results
indicate marked changes in environmental reporting practices between 1987 and 1992. In 1987,
Pergamon Accounting, Orgnnfzatfom and Society, Vol. 20, No. 6, pp. 457-466, 1995
Copyright 0 1995 Fkvier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. AU rights reserved
0361-36fW95 $9.50+0.00
0361-3682(94)0003SfS
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING IN FINLAND: A NOTE ON THE USE OF ANNUAL
REPORTS*
MIKAEL NISKALA
Uni versi ty of Lupl and
and
MICHAEL PRETES
Uni versi ty of Cal gary
Abstract
This paper analyses changes in corporate environmental reporting practices among large Finnish firms in
the past five years. Using content analysis of annual reports, we analyzed the willingness of firms to
disclose environmental information in the years 1987 and 1992. Our sample consisted of 75 Finnish
corporations drawn from the largest firms in the most environmentally sensitive industries. Our results
indicate marked changes in environmental reporting practices between 1987 and 1992. In 1987, slightly
over one quarter of the firms analysed disclosed environmental information in their annual reports, while
in 1992 this number had risen to nearly one half of firms. Most of this disclosure was in qualitative, rather
than in quantitative or financial, form. The results arc consistent with earlier studies, which indicated that
enviromnental reporting was a feature of firms in certain industrial Sectors. We conclude by noting the
influence of environmentalism on Finnish corporate environmental reporting, policy and accounting
practice.
Corporate social and environmental reporting
are not new phenomena. The willingness of
corporations to report social impacts has been
addressed in a number of studies (Lessem,
1977; Ernst & Ernst, 1978; Rey, 1978; Brockh-
off, 1979; Dierkes, 1979; Majala, 1979; Schreu-
der, 1979, 1981; Them&se, 1980; Singh &
Ahuja, 1983; Teoh & Thong, 1984; Guthrie
& Mathews, 1985; Gray et al ., 1987; Guthrie
& Parker, 1989; Gray, 1990; Yamagami &
Kokuba, 1991). These studies indicate that
reporting practices vary in different countries
and that reporting is mainly qualitative. By the
end of the 1980s the emphasis on social issues
shifted more from employee information and
value added statements (e.g. BurcheIl et aZ.,
1985) to environmental information. At the
same time there has been an increasing trend
towards greater coverage of environmental
issues in annual reports (Harte & Owen,
1991, 1992).
The United Nations Commission on Transna-
tional Corporations - Intergovernmental
Working Group of Experts on International
Standards of Accounting and Reporting @AR)
made detailed recommendations for disclosing
environmental information in 1991 (United
Nations, 1991). After publishing these recom-
l We thank Veli-Pekka Saajo for help with the data collection, Mikko Puhakka and Virpi Virkkunen for helpful comments on
the text, and Pekka Vasari for statistical help. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the European Accounting
Association annual meeting, Venice, Italy, 6-8 April 1994.
457
458 M. NISKALA and M. PRETES
mendations ISAR launched an international
environmental reporting survey (United
Nations, 1992) that showed a high level of
awareness in environmental matters, though
only a few corporations complied with the
ISAR recommendations. Environmental disclo-
sure seems to be primarily qualitative in nature.
Legal requirements to report environmental
information in Canada and the United States
were reflected especially in quantitative and
monetary environmental reporting (KPMG
1993, reported in Gray et al, 1993).
Earlier studies (see United Nations, 1992;
Kirkman & Hope, 1992) support the argument
that environmental disclosure is mainly a phe-
nomenon of large corporations (Trotman &
Bradley, 1981; Cowen et al., 1987). Environ-
mental reporting also seems to be more widely
practised in certain industries, such as forestry
(United Nations, 1992). When comparing
results from different countries some differ-
ences were found (Guthrie & Parker, 1989;
Roberts, 1991, 1992; KPMG, 1993). The high-
est levels of disclosure appear to be among
German and Swedish corporations (Roberts,
1991, 1992). Although the above results tend
to be mutually supportive, it is difficult to con-
clude anything on an international basis. The
subjective nature of much of the qualitative
environmental material makes analysis proble-
matic.
Environmental reporting in annual reports is
based either on legal requirements or the
voluntary response of corporations. The legal
basis for annual reporting in Finland is well
developed. The legal base of accounting and
corporate reporting in Finland is defined in
the Accounting Act (Kirjanpitolaki), the
Accounting Ordinance (Kirjanpitoasetus), the
Companies Act (Osakeyhtiolaki) and the Secu-
rities Markets Act (Arvopaperimarkkinalaki).
Finnish accounting practice departs from typi-
cal legalistic patterns due in part at least to the
theoretical background of accounting. The the-
oretical background to the Finnish Accounting
Act and Company Income Tax Law is the so-
called revenue-expenditure theory that was
developed in the 1940s and 1950s by Martti
Saario (Saario, 1945, 1959). The information
needs of all interest groups have been purport-
edly taken into consideration when Finnish
accounting regulations have been reformed
by authorities at different times.
Legal requirements for environmental report-
ing include, for instance, the treatment of con-
tingent liabilities. The issue of contingent
liabilities caused by environmental obligations
has been under discussion in the United States,
Canada and ISAR (Newell et al., 1990; United
Nations, 1990; Rubenstein, 1992). Obligations
caused by environmental contamination and
possible clean-up costs of polluted areas, if
accrued, can cause significant expenditures
for corporations in the future. Following the
reform of accounting legislation in 1992, finan-
cial reporting requirements in Finland moved
closer to European Community directives (see
R&y, 1992). The Accounting Act was amended
to require provisions to be made in the
accounts, as liabilities and charges, for all those
clearly definable losses or debts which, at the
date of the balance sheet, are either likely or
certain to be incurred, but uncertain as to
amount or as to the date on which they will
arise (Accounting Act, Ch. 3, Sect. lba). These
previsions will, in appropriate circumstances,
Include environmental contingent liabilities.
Finnish annual reports should be prepared in
accordance with “good bookkeeping practice”
and are required by law to contain information
about such matters as are important for evalu-
ating the state of a company and the results of
its operations and which have not been eluci-
dated in the income statement or balance
sheet, as well as events of major significance
to the company even if they have occurred
after the conclusion of the accounting period
(Companies Act, Ch. 11, Sect. 9). Furthermore,
the corporate annual report usually includes
more Information than would be demanded
by legal requirements. This kind of information
is a voluntary activity and purely a matter of
corporate policy. Environmental reporting is a
typical example of the additional information
that corporations are willing to provide to
their shareholders.
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING IN FINLAND 459
METHOD
Based on guidelines and categories estab
lished by the United Nations (United Nations,
1992), we selected nine industrial categories
with a direct or significant environmental
impact: chemicals and plastics, construction,
energy production, electricity and electronics,
forestry and forest products, industrial con-
glomerates, metals and metal products, oil trad-
ing, and transportation. The categories were
selected from a classification used by the
Finnish business magazine Talouseldmii (the
Finnish equivalent of Business Week or For-
tune). From within these categories we
selected the top 100 firms based on sales. The
Talouseldmd list includes both listed and
unlisted tirms. In order to achieve an identical
sample for comparison, we disqualified tirms
that were not listed in both 1987 and 1992.
These years were selected because 1992 is
the most recent available data, and 1987 is
the year of the Brundtland Report (United
Nations, 1987) and by extension the begin-
ning of the environmental movement of the
late 1980s; moreover, it also provided an inter-
val of five years in which tirms could initiate
environmental reporting.
A very small number of firms did not publish
an annual report, and these firms were likewise
excluded from the sample. Using this method,
we arrived at a total sample of 75, representing
the largest firms, both listed and unlisted, in the
most environmentally sensitive industries. The
sample includes firms with a majority of state
ownership (traded and untraded) as well as
firms with a majority of foreign ownership
(traded subsidiary fhms). Firms that are largely
privately owned are also included if they pub
lish financial statements.
Using a recording instrument’ with yes/no
answers to standardize data collecting, we ana-
lysed general environmental disclosure, envir-
onmental policy disclosure, and disclosure of
financial environmental information. This infor-
mation was gathered using content analysis
(see Guthrie & Mathews, 1985). Following
the method developed by Guthrie (Guthrie &
Parker, 1989) each annual report was
reviewed to determine whether or not it con-
tained any qualitative, quantitative or financial
reporting. Qualitative information includes all
verbal disclosure. Quantitative information
refers to environmental measures such as emis
sion levels and forest materials consumed in
production by volume. Financial information
includes all environmental information
expressed in monetary terms. We based our
analysis on the original Finnish language ver-
sions of the annual reports. We also tested
the statistical significance of the reporting
changes using a McNemar test (Katz & John-
son, 1985). The results of the one-tailed signi
cance test are indicated in the tables.
Restricting a study to annual reports only
may give an incomplete view of overall report-
ing (Zeghal & Ahmed, 1990). Nevertheless, the
annual report may still be considered as repre-
senting a decision made by corporate managers
about what kind and amount of information
they are willing to disclose.
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING IN
FINLAND
Table 1 summarizes the results of the study,
indicating the total number of corporations
reporting at least some information in the
years 1987 and 1992 and the results by sectors.
The results show a significant increase in
total environmental disclosure from 1987 to
1992. The increase in total disclosure was
80% and by 1992 48% of the corporations dis
closed at least some environmental informa-
tion. The major increase was in qualitative
reportlng, but 20% of the corporations
reported some quantitative and financial envir-
’ Copies of the rccotding instrument (which broadly follows the methodology established by Ernst & Ernst, 1978), in
Finnish or in Einglish translation, arc available from the authors.
460 M. NISRALA and M. PRETES
TABLE 1. Environmental disclosure by Finnish corporations
General Qualitative Quantitative Financial
1987 1992
Percent Percent
26.7% 48.0%
(20) (36)
1992
Percent
48.0%
(36)
1987 1992
Percent Percent
18.7% 20.0%
(14) (15)
1987 1992
Percent Percent
13.3% 20.0%
(10) (15)
Percent
22.7%
(17)
Total di scl osure
(75)
Change
Significance (one-tail)
By sectors
Chemicals and plastics (3)
Construction (10)
Electricity and electronics
(6)
Energy production (6)
Forestry and forest
products (6)
Industrial conglomerates
(19)
Metals and metal products
(14)
Oil trading (4)
Transportation (7)
0.0005 0.0001 0.5000 0.0313
66.7%
20.0%
0.0%
66.7%
10.0%
66.7%
66.7%
20.0%
0.0%
66.7%
10.0%
66.7%
66.7% 66.7%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
33.3% 33.3%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
83.3%
66.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 83.8%
66.7% 83.3%
33.3% 66.7%
31.6% 10.5% 31.6% 10.5% 5.3% 10.5% 5.3% 5.3%
0.0% 35.7% 0.0% 35.7% 0.0% 7.1% 0.0% 14.3%
50.0%
0.0%
100.0%
28.6%
50.0%
0.0%
100.0%
28.6%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
25.0% 25.0%
0.0% 0.0%
metal products sector, which did not disclose
any financial environmental information in
1987, whereas in 1992 14.3% of the firms
(two companies) in this sector disclosed some
financial environmental information.
The results in Table 2 indicate that the
annual review of the board of directors, opera-
tions review, and separate environmental sec-
tion were the major forms of disclosure.
Separate environmental sections were usually
less than one page of the annual report, but
included descriptions of corporate environ-
mental policy, plans and legal requirements
for environmental protection. Quantitative
reporting of environmental impacts or fman-
cial disclosure were not often disclosed in sepa-
rate reports.
We also considered the corporations’ activ-
ities in environmental policy issues. Environ-
mental auditing is a relatively new concept,
the importance of which has increased espe-
cially among the companies that are active in
environmental disclosure. Environmental audit-
onmental information. The differences for both
general and qualitative reporting changes are
statistically significant.
The disclosure results by industry support
the argument that environmental disclosure
appears to be industrially related. Industries
with higher levels of disclosure include energy
production, forestry and forest products; also
oil trading corporations, which increased
from 50 to 100%. Construction is the only
industry in which environmental disclosure
has decreased.* In 1987 three sectoral cate-
gories (electricity and electronics, metals and
metal products, and transportation) did not dis-
close any environmental information, but in
1992 these same sectors disclosed at least
some information. An examination of the quan-
titative reporting indicates that disclosure in
this form is characteristic of only certain sec-
tors; these same sectors have a high level of
disclosure in general. Financial disclosure has
largely remained constant between 1987 and
1992, with the exception of the metals and
* This decrease is due to the active public discussion on safety and working conditions that took place in Finland in the
1980s which prompted many fnms to report on workplace safety during that period.
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING IN FINLAND 461
TARLE 2. Use of different parts of annual reports in environmental disclosure
1987 1992 Change
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Significance (one-tail)
Director’s report 10 13.3% 17 22.7% 0.0330
Annual review 13 17.3% 25 33.3% 0.002 1
Future views 1 1.3% 7 9.3% 0.0160
Financial statements 3 4.0% 4 5.3% 0.5000
Notes of account 2 2.7% 5 6.7% 0.1250
Operations/branches 10 13.3% 24 32.0% 0.0003
Separate report 11 14.7% 21 28.0% 0.0010
TABLE 3. Disclosure of corporate environmental policy activities and financial environmental information
1987 1992 Change
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Significance (one-tail)
Pol i cy acti vi ti es
Environmental audit 3 4.0% 8 10.7% 0.0900
Environmental policy 7 9.3% 23 30.7% 0.0000
Commitment to international 1 1.3% 14 18.7% 0.0001
environmental programmes
Fi nanci al i nformati on
Operating expenditures
Capital expenditures
Provisions
Assets
Contingent liabilities
6 8.0% 10 13.3% 0.1100
9 12.0% 15 20.0% 0.0160
2 2.7% 2 2.7% 0.5000
3 4.0% 3 4.0% 0.5000
2 2.7% 4 5.3% 0.2500
ing is also spreading to new industries, such as
electricity and electronics. Establishing a cor-
porate environmental policy or signing a pub
lit environmental charter are popular today. As
seen in Table 3, 30% of corporations have
developed their own policy for environmental
protection. Most international environmental
protection programmes have been established
recently. In 1987 only a few corporations
talked about them, but in 1992 almost 20% of
the corporations mentioned some of the inter-
national programmes, of which the Interna-
tional Chamber of Commerce’s Business
Charter for Sustainable Development and the
Chemical Industries Association Responsible
Care Programme were mentioned repeatedly.
By 1992 environmental policies were already
routine in some corporations:
Recognizing our responsibility, taking the initiative, and
minimizing risks have formed part of Neste’s operating
principles for a number of years. The corporation
believes that the success of a company like Neste is
increasingly dependent on the social acceptability of
its operations. Development work in this area in Neste
takes place within the framework of the Responsible
Care Programme (Neste, Annual Report, 1992, p. 47).
Some corporations reported on the potential
impact of forthcoming environmental legisla-
tion, such as the proposed Environmental
Impact Assessment Law. Several firms recog-
nised European Union (EU) environmental pol-
icy and plans as a pressure source, even though
Finland is not, at the time of writing, a member
of the EU.
Table 4 shows in greater detail the areas of
environmental protection activities, Three
major areas in disclosure were environmental
impacts of products and production, air pollu-
tion and liquid waste. In 1987 none of the cor-
porations reported any plans involving
recycling, but by 1992 16% of the corporations
identified recycling as an important area. By
1992 the energy savings and efficiency cate-
gory has become a more important area of cor-
porate activity. Reporting of environmental
462 M. NISRALA and M. PRETES
TABLE 4. Areas of environmentaI protection activities: investments, poky and pIans (quaRtative); and reporting of
environmentaI Impacts (quantitative)
1987 1992 Change
Air pollution
Qualitative
Quantitative
Solid waste
Qualitative
Quantitative
Liqufd waste
Qualitative
Quantitative
Recycling
Qualitative
Quantitative
Wstr
QuaIitative
Quantitative
Products and
production
Qualitative
Quantitative
Energy savfng and
eficiency
QuaIitative
Quantitative
Frequency Percent
12 16.0%
4 5.3%
6 8.0%
2 2.7%
10 13.3%
2 2.7%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
10 13.3%
1 1.3%
14 18.7%
11 14.7%
7 9.3%
10 13.3%
Frequency Percent Signiiicance (one-tall)
21 28.0% 0.0060
6 8.0% 0.3130
17 22.7% 0.0040
3 4.0% 0.5000
19 25.3% 0.0020
6 8.0% 0.1100
12 16.0% 00003
2 2.7% 0.2500
11 14.7% 0.5000
3 4.0% 0.2500
31 41.3% 0.0001
12 16.0% 0.5000
19 25.3% 0.0003
12 16.0% 0.2500
impacts primarily considers information given was disclosed. One problem in measuring the
by the corporations about their emissions and environmental operating expenditures is that
use of natural resources. The environmental the definition of these kinds of costs is not
impacts connected to products and produc- clear. In this study we accounted expenditures
tion and energy savings and efficiency were as operating environmental costs when they
major reported areas. were connected to the accounting period con-
The results of financial disclosure of environ- cerned and were separated from environmen-
mental issues are shown in Table 3. Financial tal investments. The disclosure of these costs
environmental disclosure seems to be the most was not as intensive as the disclosure of envir-
effective method concerning the reporting of onmental investments.3
environmental investments and operating There are few examples of valuing the envir-
expenditures resulting from environmental onment apropos natural resources. Envlron-
protection activities. Of the corporations, 20% mental assets valuation may be based on the
disclosed environmental investments in 1992. natural resource stocks that are under the con-
The disclosure is not very systematic and in trol of corporations and that are also intended
most cases it was only the total amount of for commercial use, e.g. peat, ore and timber
environmental protection investments that stocks. No accounting policy for these assets
a According to the Company Income Tax Law it was previously possible to form a special reserve for nuclear waste
disposal Nowadays the corporations involved in nuclear energy production are required by the Nuclear Energy Law to
make provisions for nuclear waste disposal costs and record this amount to the nuclear waste disposal fund that is
administered by the government. No provisions made voluntariIy for environmentaI obIigations were found in this study.
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING IN FINLAND 463
was disclosed in the sample, but according to
the Accounting Act and the Company Income
Taxation Law, valuation should have been
based on historical costing. Instead, the annual
reports noted that depreciation of these assets
was made using substance depreciation, mean-
ing depreciation based on consumption of the
natural resource stock. Thls accounting policy
is directly ln line with traditional asset account-
ing practices.
Environmental contingent Liabilities dis-
closed were legally required provisions for
the costs resultlng from nuclear waste disposal
or safeguards for these purposes. Contingent
llablllties were disclosed only if they were
required by legislation. Voluntary measure-
ment and reporting of environmental obliga-
tions, as ln the case of BSO/Orlgln ln the
Netherlands (BSO/Orlgln, 1991), was not
found ln the Finnish sample. When examlnlng
financial environmental disclosure compared
to the more sophisticated ideas of envlromnen-
tal accounting (such as environmental accounts
or accounting for sustainable costs), the results
are not impressive. Despite a few exceptions
based on legally required disclosure of contln-
gent liabilities, there were no real environmen-
tal liabilities measured or reported or anything
said about potential clean-up costs or actual
contamination of the environment as a conse-
quence of corporate activities. Instead, an
increasing trend was found ln disclosing envlr-
onmental protection investments and expendi-
tures that are captured by traditional financial
recording and fit the existing framework for
financial reporting.
DISCUSSION
The Brundtland Report popularized the con-
cept of “sustainable development”, which it
delines as development that meets the needs
of the present generation without compromis-
ing the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs (United Nations, 1987). While
the report directed most of its recommenda-
tions to governments, it did note that private
firms play a role ln achieving sustainable devel-
opment. Specifically, industry needs to have a
broader awareness of environmental concerns
and its role wlthln them, rather than merely
complying with government directives. The
report also encouraged private tirms to
develop their own environmental policies
(United Nations, 1987, p. 223) and noted that
firms that have developed new technologies to
meet environmental standards are among the
most prosperous (United Nations, 1987, p.
212). Thus the Brundtland Report encourages
industries to become more environmentally
sensitive by noting that this is linked with
increased prosperity.
Further work by the United Nations (United
Nations, 1991) has produced a series of recom-
mendations for corporate disclosure. The UN
report, which was written as part of the ISAR
study, lists nine recommendations for envlron-
mental disclosure in the board of directors’
report and management discussion. These
recommendations include such things as envir-
onmental issues relevant to the firm, envlron-
mental policies adopted by the fum, goals,
targets, and improvements, compliance with
regulations, financial effects of environmental
protection measures, and the actual amounts
charged to operations and the amounts capita-
lized ln the reporting period. The UN report
further recommends disclosure in the notes
to financial statements, including reporting of
accounting practices in the notes, as well as
specific financial information about liabilities,
provisions, and reserves, and contingent llabil-
ities (if quantifiable), as these relate to environ-
mental measures (United Nations, 1991, pp.
19-21). Finnish firms evidenced only minimal
acceptance of these recommendations, provid-
ing primarily qualitative information, though
the reporting practices of Finnish lirms did
not differ greatly from the data on environmen-
tal reporting in other industrialized countries
(United Nations, 1992). As the report was
issued in 1991, it is perhaps too early to expect
adoption of all the UN recommendations.
Earlier studies evidenced that although the
majority of the corporations disclosed at least
464 M. NISKALA and M. PRETES
some environmental information, the level of
disclosure was generally low (Roberts, 1991,
1992). Finnish data indicate that environmen-
tal disclosure in Finland is not as common as in
other European countries. The disclosure level
has increased significantly from 1987 to 1992,
but still fewer than half of the corporations
were disclosing environmental information -
even though the sample was selected from
industries that tended to have the greatest
and most direct environmental impacts and
thus were expected to report some environ-
mental information.
The results are also in line with the ISAR
study, where disclosure was found to be quali-
tative in nature, covering in particular policies,
attitudes and descriptions of improvements in
certain areas. We found similar results in this
study. We emphasize that it was not the aim of
the study to evaluate or compare corporate
environmental performance. Instead we inves-
tigated what kind of environmental information
Finnish corporations are willing to disclose.
The study shows that most of the corporations
are capable of disclosing environmental infor-
mation and that a general environmental awa-
kening has occurred in industry. This is a
positive step towards the further development
of environmental accounting, but we are still
waiting for the implementation of corporate
environmental accounting or accounting for
sustainable development.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brockhoff, K., A Note on External Social Reporting by German Companies: A Survey of 1973 Company
Reports, Accounl fng, Organfzal fons and Soci ety (1979) pp. 77-85.
BSO/Otigin, The 1990 Annual Report (1991).
Burchell, S., Clubb, C. & Hopwood, A., Accounting in its Social Context: Towards a History of Value
Added in the United Kingdom, Accounti ng, Organi zal fons and Soci ety (1985) pp. 381-413.
Cowen, S. S., Ferreri, L. B. & Parker, L. D., The Impact of Corporate Characteristics on Social Respon-
sibility Disclosure: A Typology and Frequency-based Analysis, Accounti ng, Organi zatfons and Society
(1987) pp. 111-122.
Dierkes, M., Corporate Social Reporting in Germany: Conceptual Developments and Practical Experi-
ence, Accounti ng, Organfzatfons and Soci ety (1979) pp. 87-107.
Ernst & Ernst, Social Responsfbfl i ty Di scl osure: 1978 Survey (Cleveland, OH: Ernst & Ernst, 1978).
Gray, R. H., Corporate Socfal Report&g by UK Compani es: A Cross-sectonal and Longfi udfnaf Anafysi s
- An I n@ri m Report. Paper presented to British Accounting Association. University of Dundee
(1990).
Gray, R. H., Bebbington, J. & Walters, D., Account&g for the Envi ronment (London: Paul Chapman,
1993).
Gray, R. H., Owen, D. L. & Maunders, K. T., Corporate Social Reporti ng: Accounti ng andAccounta&fl fty
(Englewood Cliis, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1987).
Guthrie, J. 8~ Mathews, M. R., Corporate Social Accounting in Australasia, Research i n Coqboraare Soda1
Performance and Poky (1985) pp. 251-277.
Guthrie, J. & Parker, L. D., Corporate Social Disclosure Practice: A Comparative International Analysis,
Advances i n Publ i c I nteresl Accounti ng (1989) pp. 67-93.
Harte, G. & Owen, D., Environmental Disclosure in the Annual Reports of British Companies: A Research
Note, Accountfng, Audi ti ng andAccoun~abfl f@J ournal (1991) pp. 51-61.
Harte, G. & Owen, D., Current Trends in the Reporting of Green Issues in the Annual Reports of United
Kingdom Companies, in Owen, D. L. (ed.), Green Repoti fng -Accountancy and the Chal l enge of the
Nfnel fes pp. 166-200 (London: Chapman & Hall, 1992).
Kirkman, P. & Hope, C., Environmental Disclosure in U.K. Company Annual Reports, Research Paper
number 6/92 (Cambridge University, 1992).
Katz, S. 8~ Johnson, N. L. (eds), EncycZopedfa of Statfstfcal Sciences, Vol. 5 (New York: John Wiley &
Sons, 1985).
KPMG, I #tematfonal Survey of Envfronmenl al Reporti ng (London: KPMG Peat Marwick, 1993).
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING IN FINLAND 465
Lessem, R., Corporate Social Reporting in Action: An EvaIuation of British, European and American
Practice, Accountfng, Organfzatfons and Soci ety (1977) pp. 279-194.
Ma@, R., Porssiyhtiiiiden suhtautuminen sosiaaIisten vaIkutusten raportointiin, Publications of the
Turku School of Economics. Series A-9: 1979.
Newell, G., Kreuze, J. & Newell, S., Accounting for Hazardous Waste, ManagementAccounti ng, pp. 58-
61 Nay 19!30).
FWy, P., Reforming Finnish Accounting Legislation, The European Accounti ng Revi ew (1992) pp. 413-
420.
Rey, F., Corporate Social Responsibility and Social Report@ in France, in Schoenfeld, H. (ed.), 7&e
Status of Socfal Reportfng fn Sel ected Countrfes (Urbana, I L: University of Illinois Press, 1978).
Roberta, C., EnvironmentaI Disclosures: A Note on Reporting Practices in Mainland Europe, Accountfng,
Audftfng and Accountabfl fty J ournal (1991) pp. 62-71.
Roberts, C., Environmental Disclosures in Corporate Annual Reports in Western Europe, in Owen, D. L.
(ed.), Green Reportfng - Accountancy and tbe Cbal i enge of tbe Nfnetfes, pp. 139-165 (London:
Chapman & Hall, 1992).
Rubenstein, D. B., Bridging Gap between Green Accounting and Black Ink, Accountfng, Organfzatfons
and Socfety (1992) pp. 501-508.
Saario, M., Reaffsofnttperfaate ja k~ytti i omafsuuden pofstot (Hel si nki : LiiketaIoustieteellisen tutkimus-
Iaitoksen julkaisuja 6, 1945).
Saario, M., Kftj anpfdon menc&do -teorfa (Keuruu: Otava, 1959).
Schreuder, H., Corporate Social Report@ in the Federal Republic of Germany: An Overview, Account-
fng, Organfzatfons and Socfety (1979) pp. 109-122.
Schreuder, H., Employees and the Corporate Social Reports - the Dutch Case. Accounti ng Reufew
(1981) pp. 294-308.
Singh, D. R. % Ahuja, J. M., Corporate Social Reporting in India, I nternatfonal J ournal of Accounting
Educatfon and Research (1983) pp. 151-169.
Teoh, H. Y. & Thong, G., Another Look at Corporate Social Responsibility and Reporting: An Empirical
Study in a Developing Country, Accounti ng, Ofganfzutfons and Soci ety (1984) pp. 189-206.
Theunisse, H., Corporate Social Reporting in Belgium, J ournal UEC (1980) pp. 206-211.
Trotman, K. T. & Bradley, G. W., Association between Social Responsibility Disclosure and Character-
istics of Companies, Accountfng, Ot ganf zat f ons and Socfety (1981) pp. 355-362.
United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (Brundtland
Report) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987).
United Nations Commission on Transnational Corporations. IntergovemmentaI Working Group of
Experts on International Standards of Accounting and Reporting, Information Disclosure relating to
EnvironmentaI Measures, Economic and Social Council (1990), VC. lO/AC.3/1990/5.
United Nations Commission on Transnational Corporations. IntergovemmentaI Working Group of
Experts on International Standards of Accounting and Reporting, Accounting for Environmental Pro
tection Measures, Economic and Social Council (1991). VC.lO/AC.3/1991/5.
United Nations Commission on Transnatlonal Corporations. Intergovernmental Working Group of
Experts on International Standards of Accounting and Reporting, Environmental Disclosures: Intema-
tional Survey of Corporate Reporting Practices, Economic and Social Council (1992). VC.lO/AC.3/
1992/3.
Yamagami, T. & Kokuba, K., A Note on Corporate Social Disclosure in Japan, Accountfng, Audftfng and
Accountabi l i ty J ournal (1991) pp. 32-39.
Zeghal, D. & Ahmed, S. A., Comparison of Social Responsibility Information Disclosure Media Used by
Canadian Finns, Accounti ng, Audfti ng and Accountabfl fty J ournal (1990) pp. 38-53.
466
M. NISKALA and M. PRRTES
APPENDIX: CORPORATIONS INCLUDED IN THE STUDY, BY SECTOR
Ckwmkals and plastics (3)
Kemira
KW-H-yhtym’6
Neste
C0nsrrucrlon (10)
Hartela
Lamin
Lemminkiben
Luja-Yhtiiit
Polar
Puolimatka
Ruola
Sat0
wo
I-IT-YhtymB
Electrfdty and electronics (6)
ABByhti6t
Ensto
Finvest
L M Rricsson
Nokia
vaisala
Energy production (6)
Eteti-Suomen Voima
Imatran Voima
Kemijoki
LounaisSuomen SIhk6
Pohjolan Voima
Teollisuuden Voima
I ndusfrfal conglomerates (19)
Amer
Asko
Asp0
Eka-yhtymi
GWS
Instrumentarium
Las& & Tikanoja
lnnen Tehtaat
Mercantile
Orion
Partek
Repola
Rettig
Siemens
Sponsor
Spontel
Tampella
Vapo
Wihuri
Metals and metal products (14)
Ahlsttim
Dalsbruk
Fiskars
Hackman
HollmiiR
Kone
Kuusakoski
Labsystems
oras
Outokumpu
Rautaruukki
Forestry and forest products (6)
Enso-Gutzeit
Kymmene
Kym
MetsUtto
sunila
Veitsiluoto
Sisu-Auto
Tunturipyiir;i
Valmet
OII fradfng (4)
Esso
Shell
Suomen Petrooli
Teboil
Transportation 0
Bika Line
EfoOh
FillMir
HuolintakeSkus
Pohjolan Liikenne
SF Line
Transfennica
Number of cases listed = 75
doc_786337195.pdf