University of Vaasa - Vaasan yliopisto

Table 4. Stakeholder considered by companies
shareholde
r and
investors
client
s
supplie
rs
workers
/
employ
ee
societ
y
medi
a
enviro
n-ment
644
public
admin
.
Acciona 123 123 123 123 123 23 23
Endesa 123 123 123 123 123 123 123
Gamesa 123 123 123 123 123 12
Gas Natural
123 123 123 123 123
Hidro –
cantábrico
123 123 123 123 123 123
Iberdrola 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123
Unión Fenosa 123 123 123 123 123 123 123
main ones are in bold type; 1 = year 2005; 2 = year 2006; 3 = year 2007
Information Provided
A positive evolution overall has been observed in the information supplied by
companies within the brief of the study (Table 5), as there are an increasing number
of standards provided. Analyzing these indicators in more depth, we see that the
effort done focuses primarily on the core indicators and the secondary ones have
been less developed. In this area we see as Iberdrola (leader) applies and shows more
complete information on both indicators from the beginning of the period. Noting
GRI scoreboard, it is possible to guess how the rest of companies are reaching the
level of information disclosed by the leader. Within the secondary indicators we can
see that the most developed ones are those that can show positive aspects as EN 6, 7,
13 and 14. On the other hand those involving secondary indicators that show
environmental, damages, discharges and impacts achieved a lower level of
information (15, 24, 25, 29).
A deeper analysis of these standards shows that effort mostly centres on the main
ones, to the detriment of the secondary ones. Within the secondary standards, it can
be seen that those worked with most are the ones where the company can
demonstrate positive aspects, such as EN 6, 7, 13 and 4. On the other hand,
secondary standards involving the identification of damage, spills and impact have a
lesser degree of information (EN 15, 24, 25, 29).
One of the GRI guidelines is that the information supplied must allow stakeholders to
analyse changes in the organisation, and to be able to compare data using the
company benchmarking. In spite of the plethora of information given by the
companies, we cannot make comparisons, as the same units are not always used. To
cite a few of the most common, as an example (Tn CO2, KTn of CO2; MT CO2; Kg
of CO2/Kwh, gr CO2/Kwh for standards EN 16 and 17). Some companies even use
different measurements for different years, making it difficult to make even
longitudinal comparisons.