Journal of Cleaner Production 319 (2021) 128624

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Implications for Sustainable Development Goals: A framework to assess

company disclosure in sustainability reporting
Armando Calabrese a, 1, Roberta Costa a, *, 1, Massimo Gastaldi b, 1, Nathan Levialdi Ghiron a, 1,
Roberth Andres Villazon Montalvan a, 1
a
Department of Enterprise Engineering, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, Rome, Italy
b
Department of Industrial and Information Engineering and Economics, University of L’Aquila, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling editor. Cecilia Maria Villas Bôas de The United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development has introduced a new sustainability paradigm that
Almeida challenges private firms. According to this, in pursuing sustainable development, companies must face a complex
system of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that are divided into 17 primary goals, 169 targets, and 244
Keywords: indicators. This paper outlines an assessment framework to investigate how companies are dealing with this
Sustainability reporting
Agenda and reporting their commitment in achieving SDGs, as well as monitoring their progress. Content
Sustainability assessment
analysis has been applied to reduce the number of SDG indicators including only the companies’ internally
Sustainable development goals
SDG indicators actionable ones and to associate them to Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) indicators. A positioning matrix allows
2030 agenda companies to compare their strategies with those of other companies regarding their efforts in achieving SDGs.
Global reporting initiative The relative position of firms in the matrix provides valuable feedback for managers giving insight into how other
companies adapt their sustainability practices to the requirements of the SDGs. As a means of exemplification,
the framework has been applied to a group of GRI-reporting major electricity companies. The proposed
framework presents opportunities for both practice and research allowing to investigate the companies’ level of
engagement in reporting and monitoring their contributions to SDGs.

1. Introduction (United Nations, 2017). According to Dang et al. (2019) and LeBlanc
(2015), the 2030 Agenda indicates the evolution of how sustainability
The United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development em­ may be treated globally during the period 2015–2030. Indeed, the
phasizes the important role companies play in their capacity of financial, Agenda evidences the necessity to consider the people, the planet,
technological and resource mobilization for sustainability. Indeed, it prosperity, peace, and partnership as a basis to reach global sustainable
explicitly calls for action not only by governments, but by the private development (United Nations, 2015).
sector and society as well (United Nations, 2015). As opportunities arise In the private sector, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) allow
for businesses in their quest for sustainability through SDGs, the ne­ companies to select and to prioritize corporate sustainability issues and
cessity to monitor how this sector is moving toward the 17 SDGs is also to align strategies toward specific or relevant sustainability goals
relevant because of the private sector’s essential role. (Gómez-Bezares et al., 2017; Sullivan et al., 2018; Adams, 2017; Ike
The 2030 Agenda (A/RES/70/1) provides 17 SDGs and 169 targets et al., 2019). Nonetheless, companies are facing several difficulties to
aiming to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure prosperity for all as quickly adapt to this new complex sustainability scenario where goals,
part of a new sustainable development agenda. Furthermore, in July targets and indicators exist. According to Schönherr et al. (2017),
2017, the A/RES/71/313 resolution published the indicator framework achieving the SDGs is hindered by a fundamental difficulty, i.e., the
for the goals adding 244 indicators. This resolution intends to ensure limited knowledge of the actual impact of sustainability practices on
consistency and conformity of data, as well as guaranteeing transparent SDGs.
mechanisms of measurement for comparability purposes for the SDGs The 2030 Agenda offers an opportunity to transform the dominant

* Corresponding author. University of Rome Tor Vergata, Department of Enterprise Engineering, Via del Politecnico 1, 00133, Rome, Italy.
E-mail address: roberta.costa@uniroma2.it (R. Costa).
1
The authors contributed equally and are listed in alphabetical order.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128624
Received 30 November 2020; Received in revised form 30 June 2021; Accepted 10 August 2021
Available online 15 August 2021
0959-6526/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Calabrese et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 319 (2021) 128624

approaches to economic, social, and environmental challenges (Stevens development of sustainability towards achieving the SDGs. An exem­
and Kanie, 2016). KPMG (2018) indicates that four out of ten of the plificative application of the framework on a group of major European
world’s 250 largest companies currently discuss SDGs in their sustain­ energy companies’ sustainability reports is presented to provide prac­
ability reports; and these companies have prioritized one or two SDGs, titioners and managers with a guideline of how the framework should be
focusing on target level during the period 2016–2018. According to Van employed. The following Section 2 presents the theoretical background
Zanten and Van Tulder (2018), companies are more likely to engage in regarding SDGs at the corporate level and SDG reporting. Section 3
those SDGs which are internally actionable throughout their value describes the assessment framework. Section 4 presents the results and
chains, rather than those whose enactment depends upon elements discussion; and finally, section 5 states the conclusions.
outside their control. Prioritizing the implementation of some SDGs
certainly helps the enactment of other ones. Nonetheless, their inte­ 2. Theoretical background
grative and indivisible characteristics cannot be disregarded. Dang et al.
(2019) state that assessing SDGs at a target level reveals that many goals 2.1. Corporate engagement with the SDGs
are complementary, some even contradictory. Approaching SDGs at a
target level is also too subjective to interpretation, and the utilization of The 17 SDGs are the result of multilateral negotiations based upon
different assessment and measurement methods can lead to diverse the 2012 Rio+20 Conference’s final report, “The Future We Want”
conclusions about their achievement (Stafford-Smith et al., 2016). (Stevens and Kanie, 2016; Jayasooria, 2016). They represent the insti­
SDG reporting is at the center of growing attention from various tutional framework to achieve sustainability, resulting from the effort of
researchers (e.g., Rosati and Faria, 2019a; Silva, 2021; van der Waal and governments, businesses, think tanks, and society (Gupta and Vegelin,
Thijssens, 2020). By reporting on the SDGs, companies improve the 2016; Jayasooria, 2016; Caiado et al., 2018, Van Zanten and Van Tulder,
management of their efforts towards the achievement of global goals 2018). In 2017, the A/RES/71/313 resolution has been adopted as an
(Rosati and Faria, 2019a; Ordonez-Ponce and Khare, 2020). According instrument for the accountability of SDGs. The resolution sets the global
to Szennay et al. (2019), the experience gained, and know-how devel­ indicator framework for the SDGs and targets, publishing 244 indicators
oped during the reporting practices may be a starting point to under­ and complementing the 2030 Agenda. These indicators aim to deliver
stand the sustainability commitment of companies and their accessible, timely, reliable, and guaranteed confrontable information on
contribution to SDGs. Sustainability reports are mostly published under the SDGs, facilitating a systematic follow-up at the various levels.
the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standard that presents a compre­ The 2030 Agenda emphasizes the various stakeholders’ roles in
hensive set of measures to assess the companies’ contribution to SDGs implementing the SDGs including the private sector ranging from micro-
(Bebbington and Unerman, 2018; Rosati and Faria, 2019a; Szennay enterprises, to cooperatives, to multinationals (United Nations, 2015).
et al., 2019; Stafford-Smith et al., 2016). Thus, GRI standards can aid According to Pizzi et al. (2020a), although the achievement of the SDGs
companies in reporting their impact on the SDGs (García-Sánchez et al., is assessed at the national level, the private sector represents one of the
2020). critical factors in achieving the SDGs. Topple et al. (2017) see the
Nonetheless, many authors stress the need to develop managerial introduction of the seventeen SDGs as one of the main driving forces
tools, frameworks, methods and indicators to better understand the leading companies toward sustainability, while Rauter et al. (2017)
engagement of the companies in contributing to the SDGs (Buhmann explain that the private sector can be a catalyst or an obstacle in
et al., 2019; Dahlmann et al., 2019; Bebbington and Unerman, 2018; achieving the SDGs because of its ability to innovate business and to
Hák et al., 2016). Other authors point out that the reporting of the SDGs impact society. Indeed, some of the objectives of the 2030 Agenda
barely exceed a symbolic level, i.e., sustainability reports only mention cannot be achieved without the collaboration of companies due to the
the SDGs (Rosati and Faria, 2019a; van der Waal and Thijssens, 2020; externalities produced by their activities. These represent one of the
van der Waals et al., 2021; Silva, 2021). Starting from this premise, this main threats to achieving SDGs, especially in sectors where legislation is
paper presents an assessment framework to investigate the level of the lacking (Vazquez-Brust et al., 2020). The introduction of the SDGs has
companies’ engagement in reporting and managing their contributions been driving companies to develop new business models exploiting
and their progress in achieving the SDGs. The framework utilizes two innovative solutions, partnerships, financing, and market opportunities
numerical indices and a positioning matrix; thus allowing companies’ (Madsen, 2020; Rosati and Faria, 2019a; Moldavska and Welo, 2019;
managers both a quick comparison with competitors and an overview of Morioka et al., 2017). Companies that consider the SDGs an opportunity,
the overall behaviour of the sector regarding the measurement and to the point of integrating the goals in their strategies, are subsequently
monitoring of the SDGs. A matrix is particularly fit to help organizations able to redesign their corporate business, create new market areas and
mapping their initiatives, strategies and their contributions to the SDGs, innovative services based on the SDGs (Madsen, 2020; Madsen and
and to identify how they are dealing with the SDGs (Grainger-Brown and Ulhøi, 2021).
Malekpour, 2019; Calabrese et al., 2021). According to Isaksson (2018), SDGs are the pillars aiding companies
The framework differs from previous studies that use keyword search to “visualize how a sustainable future will look like.” Several authors
for SDG presence in the sustainability reports (e.g., Silva, 2021; van der describe the private sectors’ important role in achieving the SDGs
Waal and Thijssens, 2020) overcoming the symbolic approach issue by because of the companies’ ability to innovate and to mobilize resources,
testing the accuracy of the SDG reporting. Unlike other studies that technology, and finances (Tsalis et al., 2020; Caiado et al., 2018; Sulli­
measure reporting accuracy at the level of SDG targets (e.g., Tsalis et al., van et al., 2018; Muff et al., 2017). For these reasons, human resource
2020; Pizzi et al., 2020b), the proposed framework analyzes the accu­ competencies such as green creativity and leadership are becoming ever
racy of the SDG reporting at the level of SDG indicators examining the more relevant as they help organizations steer towards sustainable
correspondence between GRI indicators and SDG indicators. development and the SDGs’ achievement (Ogbeibu et al., 2020, 2021a,
The framework offers the companies’ managers the possibility to 2021b). Even if the private sector is considered a key factor in achieving
detect those SDG indicators, and consequently the related GRI in­ the SDGs, Ike et al. (2019) note that there is a lack of research on the
dicators, which should be the object of their attention. The matrix and implementation of the SDGs at the corporate level; and that it is unclear
the two indices allow to identify the areas of intervention, that is the how the private sector can operationalize and achieve the SDGs through
SDG indicators (therefore targets and goals) to which the company corporate sustainability. Although the SDGs should be considered of
should pay more attention. The resulting analysis makes it possible to equal importance, companies must clarify and prioritize their imple­
orient the reporting process towards those areas that have the greatest mentation (Ike et al., 2019). In addition, Leagnavar et al. (2016) suggest
need for accuracy and coverage. Furthermore, the analysis allows that the private sector’s role in achieving SDGs may rely upon the
company managers to identify the most suitable strategies for the definition of their core business activities. Thus, the SDGs’ voluntary

2
A. Calabrese et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 319 (2021) 128624

nature has encouraged giving priority to the implementation of one or companies’ role in achieving the SDGs. The process is organised into five
two of them, without defining specific implementation methods (Ste­ steps: i) Understanding the SDGs; ii) Defining priorities; iii) Setting
vens and Kanie, 2016; Van Zanten and Van Tulder, 2018). Furthermore, goals; iv) Integrating; v) Reporting and communicating. The SDG
Sullivan et al. (2018) observe that the SDGs guide companies in focusing Compass is based on an evolution of the SDG reporting that is indicated
their strategies on specific sustainability goals using these as an oppor­ in literature (Isaksson, 2019; Odważny et al., 2019), but it lacks KPIs
tunity to identify new businesses and to engage their stakeholders. related to the SDG indicators’ level.
Nevertheless, the companies’ awareness of SDGs is often limited. Some Furthermore, in 2018, the GRI and the United Nations Global
companies consider the SDGs too complicated to implement as there are Compact (UNGC) complement the SDG Compass by publishing a set of
too many indicators to be understood, even for a single goal; other ones guidelines named “Business Reporting on SDGs”. GRI continues to
commit to many SDGs without knowing that each goal has numerous develop tools and initiatives aiming to give an increasingly important
indicators to refer to (Gunawan et al., 2020). role to the private sector in measuring and achieving the SDGs. The
Van Zanten and Van Tulder (2018) further the discussion by specific publications “An Analysis of the Goals and Targets” (GRI,
describing the ability of a company to act effectively on a SDG targe­ 2018b) and “Linking the SDGs and the GRI Standards” (GRI, 2020) detail
t/indicator (i.e., actionability of SDGs). The actionability of a targe­ recommendations of possible disclosure of SDGs at a target level, linking
t/indicator may be categorized as internal or external. The internally these to a set of possible activities that companies can undertake. The
actionable SDG targets may be defined as those that “can be engaged map of correspondence between the SDGs at target level and the GRI
within the company or throughout their value chains. Hence these SDG indicators makes it easier for organizations to utilize reporting to assess
targets fall in a company’s sphere of influence” (Van Zanten and Van how they impact the SDGs (GRI, 2018b).
Tulder, 2018). As to externally actionable SDG targets/indicators, these Nevertheless, these guidelines require additional work for the SDG
authors explain the difficulties of achievement because of their de­ indicators’ adaptation and complementation. In fact, the GRI (2018b)
pendency upon collective activities, involving partnerships with gov­ indicates the necessity of more substantial work regarding the gaps
ernments, unions, corporations, etc. They explain that enterprises are where there are no relevant indicators for a particular target and a lack
more likely to contribute to sustainability through those targets/indi­ of sector-specific guidance.
cators which are internally actionable. Furthermore, PWC (2019) notes that reporting companies are very
adept at using sustainability standards’ indicators; but they are not as
2.2. The SDG reporting effective in showing how they match SDG goals, making it difficult to
associate their activities with the 2030 Agenda.
SDG reporting is the practice of companies publicly disclosing their During the period 2015–2020, literature highlights the necessity of
commitment to fulfill the 2030 Agenda demands (Rosati and Faria, frameworks, methods, and indicators to better understand the contri­
2019a; GRI, 2018a). According to Szennay et al. (2019), the experience bution of corporate sustainability activities to the SDGs (Buhmann et al.,
and know-how developed during the reporting practices may be a 2019; Dahlmann et al., 2019; Bebbington and Unerman, 2018; Hák
starting point to understand the sustainability commitment of com­ et al., 2016). In fact, some authors underline the necessity to assess the
panies and their contribution to SDGs. Isaksson (2019) explains that the disclosed information critically because many sustainability reports
sustainability reporting process aims to advise stakeholders on “how the present a distorted picture, often barely surpassing a symbolic level, i.e.,
reporting organization is working with sustainable development.” The sustainability reports only mention the SDGs (van der Waal and Thijs­
private sector is not yet able to identify the tools needed to assess its sens, 2020; van der Waals et al., 2021; Silva, 2021).
contribution to the SDGs and focuses on a limited number of SDGs (PWC, To the best of the authors’ knowledge, only Tsalis et al. (2020), Pizzi
2018, 2019). Di Vaio and Varriale (2020) highlight that many com­ et al. (2020b), and Ordonez-Ponce and Khare (2020) evaluate the
panies are committed to the SDGs, but they ignore how to assess their quality of SDG reporting practices at a target level through the GRI
efforts in meeting the SDGs due to an evident lack of reporting guide­ standard. Moreover, Tsalis et al. (2020) are the only authors that pro­
lines. The same authors, aligning with previous literature (e.g., Rosati pose a methodological framework to assess the quality of corporate
and Faria, 2019a, 2019b), emphasize the significant role of sustain­ sustainability reporting practices regarding SDGs. Nevertheless,
ability reporting as an enabler of actions and strategies focused on the focusing on SDGs from a target level is too subjective and can lead to
SDGs. different conclusions regarding the SDGs’ achievement or their contri­
According to Rosati and Faria (2019a), factors such as company size, bution (Stafford-Smith et al., 2016).
industry membership and perceived corporate impact play a key role in Unlike other methods that assess the quality of SDG reporting at the
the companies’ decision to start publishing sustainability reports and to level of SDG targets (e.g., Tsalis et al., 2020; Pizzi et al., 2020b), the
include SDGs in them. Sustainability reports are mainly published under proposed framework analyzes the accuracy of SDG reporting at the level
the GRI guidelines, which are widely accepted and increasingly used by of SDG indicators using the correspondence between GRI and SDG in­
organizations to disclose their sustainability commitment and their dicators. Research has shown that companies are proficient at reporting
contribution to SDGs (Lozano et al., 2016; Isaksson, 2019; Rosati and GRI indicators, but not as competent with SDG indicators, making it
Faria, 2019a). The GRI guidelines are particularly suitable in reporting more difficult to assess the companies’ level of contribution to the 2030
SDGs as they are structured under the triple bottom line (TBL) and agenda (PWC, 2019). Analysis at goal and target level can conceal the
indicate a set of specific indicators which can be easily connected to the symbolic approach often used by companies in SDG reporting (e.g.,
SDG goals and targets (i.e., GRI, 2020). Various authors highlight the Silva, 2021; van der Waal and Thijssens, 2020), making an analysis at
usefulness of reporting on GRI standards as a measurement tool for indicator level a better tool for comprehensively understanding the
SDGs, enabling companies to understand their contribution in achieving companies’ possible contribution and impact on SDGs (PWC, 2018).
the SDGs (Ordonez-Ponce and Khare, 2020; Tsalis et al., 2020; Pizzi Furthermore, the success of sustainability activities aimed at achieving
et al., 2020b; García-Sánchez et al., 2020). the SDGs can only improve through feedback and therefore the mea­
In 2015, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the United Nations surement of the SDG indicators and their monitoring (PWC, 2018).
Global Compact (UNGC), and the World Business Council of Sustainable Indicator-level analysis improves the assessment of the accuracy of
Development (WBCSD) have published the SDG Compass (GRI et al., SDG disclosure and limits the challenge of interaction effects and
2015) that guides companies in aligning their strategies to SDGs, as well vaguely defined targets and goals. The proposed framework allows the
as measuring and managing their contribution to the SDGs. The SDG companies’ managers to identify those SDG indicators (therefore targets
Compass features a generic five-step process based on SDG targets for and goals); to which the company should pay more attention. The
each business, and this is one of the first attempts to understand the resulting analysis makes it possible to orient the reporting process

3
A. Calabrese et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 319 (2021) 128624

towards those areas that have the greatest need for accuracy and indicators without a partnership with other actors (governments, public
coverage. Furthermore, the proposed assessment framework is aimed to authorities, etc.). Then, companies are more likely to engage with SDG
assist companies in understanding if the quality of their SDG disclosures indicators that can be achieved autonomously, rather than those that
corresponds to their real commitment to achieving the SDGs; and it also cannot be self-implemented (Van Zanten and Van Tulder, 2018).
indicates how the monitoring process can be improved. Moreover, de­ The three coders have agreed to select 46 internally actionable SDG
cision makers can utilize the framework as a strategic management tool indicators with an intercoder reliability of 95.7% that has been calcu­
allowing companies to analyze their strategic positioning with respect to lated using the formula of Miles and Huberman (1994) and has resulted
their competitors in the same sector. acceptable (Saldaña, 2010). The 46 SDG indicators correspond to 34
targets and 13 goals (Table 1). As expected, the number of indicators in
3. The assessment framework Table 1 is not the same for each SDG. In fact, the companies’ achieve­
ment of SDG8 exceeds that of other SDGs. The SDG8 (decent work and
Even if the SDGs cannot be obtained without the companies’ economic growth) corresponds to the largest number of internally
contribution, only recently, research literature has begun to consider actionable SDG indicators, for a total of 8 indicators aimed at 6 targets.
their fundamental role in their achievement (e.g., Pizzi et al., 2020b; According to Table 1, companies can also make a major contribution to
Silva, 2021; Van Zanten and Van Tulder, 2018); but the best practice for achieving the SDG6 and the SDG12 both of which have the
corporate SDG reporting has yet to be established (GRI, 2018b; PWC, second-largest target number (4), with 7 and 5 internally actionable SDG
2019). As explained in the previous sections, the problem that any or­ indicators, respectively. The SDGs that correspond to externally
ganization must face regarding SDGs is the extreme complexity of actionable indicators are not present in Table 1 since their achievement
dealing with 17 major goals, 169 targets and 244 indicators. In fact, depends on government initiatives or policies; and companies cannot
some companies consider the SDGs too complicated to implement due to directly contribute to their achievement. The SDGs that are not present
the large number of targets and indicators that must be understood, even in Table 1 are: SDG1 (end poverty); SDG13 (climate action); SDG14 (life
for a single goal; other companies engage in many SDGs without un­ below water); and SDG15 (life on land). Thus, these SDGs cannot be
derstanding that each goal has many indicators to refer to (Gunawan achieved within value chain operations and require the cooperation of
et al., 2020). Horne et al. (2020) underline how SDG measurement is all sectors of society. Also, Szennay et al. (2019) have found a poor
challenging as there are interaction effects and vaguely defined goals, connection between these four SDGs and reporting practices. The au­
creating a challenge to measure progress towards the SDGs compre­ thors indicate that the private sector will play a major role in achieving
hensively and consistently. specific SDGs rather than others. Nonetheless, it does not mean that
This paper proposes an assessment framework investigating how corporate actors cannot deal with the unrepresented SDGs; but their
companies are managing this complex situation, reporting their compliance could be indirect and be based upon the interrelated char­
commitment, and monitoring their progress in achieving the SDGs. The acteristics of SDGs greatly discussed in the literature (LeBlanc, 2015;
framework proposed in this paper differs from previous analysis tools Barbier and Burgess, 2017).
that use a keywords’ search to determine the presence of SDGs in sus­ The second phase of this framework (Fig. 1) utilizes content analysis
tainability reports (e.g., Silva, 2021; van der Waal and Thijssens, 2020) to associate the SDG indicators selected in the first phase with GRI in­
because it measures not only the presence, but also the accuracy of SDG dicators. The same group of three researchers have carried out the
disclosure, significantly limiting the problem of the symbolic approach content analysis, taking into account the joint research by the GRI and
often used by companies in sustainability reporting.
In the first phase, the proposed framework has utilized content
Table 1
analysis to reduce the number of SDG indicators to internally actionable
Total number of targets and indicators selected by goal.
SDG indicators in that companies can make a direct contribution to them
(see Fig. 1). Content analysis is an appropriate research method to SDG Targets Indicators
analyze sustainability reports and the potential contribution to SDGs 2. Zero Hunger 2 3
(Horne et al., 2020; Silva, 2021). The content analysis of the 3. Good Wealth and Well-being 1 3
A/RES/71/313 resolution, entitled “Global Indicator Framework for the 4. Quality Education 2 2
5. Gender Equality 1 1
Sustainable Development Goals and Targets of the 2030 Agenda for 6. Clean water and Sanitation 4 7
Sustainable Development” (United Nations, 2017) has been performed 7. Affordable and Clean Energy 3 4
by three researchers, each of whom has had long-time expertise in sus­ 8. Decent Work and Economic Growth 6 8
tainability. The SDG indicators have been systematically categorized as 9. Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure 3 4
10. Reducing Inequalities 2 2
internally and externally actionable. The categorization of the SDG in­
11. Sustainable Cities and Communities 2 3
dicators has been based on the company’s direct action on them. The 12. Responsible Consumption and Production 4 5
internally actionable SDG indicators can be implemented through the 16. Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions 2 2
companies’ value chain. On the contrary, companies cannot make a 17. Partnerships for the Goals 2 2
significant contribution toward achieving externally actionable SDG Total 34 46

Fig. 1. The assessment framework phases.

4
A. Calabrese et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 319 (2021) 128624

the UNGC which has been conducted to “help companies understand (energy consumption within the organization) corresponds to 6 SDG
how they are impacting the SDGs and their targets, by providing a list of indicators; while the indicators 302–2 (energy consumption outside the
indicators to make reporting on the SDGs straightforward and simple to organization), 303–1 (interactions with water as a shared resource),
execute” (GRI, 2018b; GRI, 2020). The three coders have agreed on 152 303–3 (water withdrawal) and 306–2 (waste by type and disposal
matches between internally actionable SDG indicators and GRI in­ method) correspond to 5 SDG indicators. Table 2 illustrates the corre­
dicators, as shown in Table 2, with intercoder reliability of 97.36% that spondence between indicators according to the TBL logic: 14 SDG in­
has been calculated using the formula of Miles and Huberman (1994) dicators corresponding to 24 GRI indicators in the economic dimension;
and has resulted acceptable (Saldaña, 2010). 24 SDG indicators corresponding to 73 GRI indicators are classified in
Some GRI indicators are used to describe and monitor more than one the environmental dimension; and 19 SDG indicators corresponding to
SDG indicator. For example, the GRI indicator 201–1 (direct economic 59 GRI indicators in the social one. This classification highlights the
value generated and distributed) corresponds to 7 SDG indicators; 302–1 multidisciplinary and complementary aspects of the SDGs and targets
since some SDG indicators belonging to the same target have been
Table 2 classified into two of the three TBL dimensions. For example, the SDG
Correspondence between internally actionable SDG indicators and GRI indicator 9.4.1 (CO2 emission per unit of value-added) is classified in
indicators. both the economic and environmental spheres. The coders have selected
70 different GRI indicators: 33% belonging to the GRI environmental
ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL
standard (series 300); 40% to the GRI social standard (series 400); 14%
SDG GRI SDG GRI SDG GRI
to the GRI economic standard (series 200); and 13% to the GRI foun­
6.2.1 203–1 3.9.1 305-1; 305–2; 2.3.1 413–2 dation standard (Series 100).
8.3.1 203-2; 305–3; 305–6; 2.3.2 411–1 In the third phase (Fig. 1), the framework proceeds with the defini­
204-1 305-7
tion of two indicators used to analyze sustainability reports of selected
8.5.1 202-1; 3.9.2 305-1; 306-1 2.4.1 414–2
202-2 companies: the “SDG Coverage Index” and the “SDG Commitment
9.3.2 201–4 3.9.3 306-2; 306–3; 3.9.1 403-2; 403-3 Index.” The SDG Coverage Index measures to what extent a company is
306-4 reporting the internally actionable SDGs. The index is calculated as the
9.4.1 201-1; 6.2.1 303–1 3.9.2 403-2; 403–3;
percentage of GRI indicators in Table 2 that are disclosed in the com­
203-1 403-9
9.5.1 201–1 6.3.1 303-3; 303–4; 3.9.3 403-2; 403–3; pany’s sustainability report. The greater the value of the SDG Coverage
306–1; 306-2 403-10 Index, the greater the awareness of the company toward the SDGs. The
9.5.2 201–1 6.3.2 303-3; 306-3 4.3.1 404–1 SDG Coverage Index measures the completeness of SDG reporting at an
10.4.1 201-1; 6.4.1 303-1; 303–5; 4.5.1 404–1 indicator level.
207–1; 306-1
The SDG Commitment Index measures the company’s involvement
207–2; 6.4.2 303-1; 303-2 5.5.2 102-22; 102–24;
207-3; 405-1 in managing and in monitoring SDG achievements. The index is calcu­
207-4 lated assigning a value from 1 to 4 to each of the GRI indicators in
11.4.1 201–1 6.5.1 303-1; 303-2 8.5.1 102-8; 401–1; Table 2 that are shown in the company’s sustainability report (1 =
12.3.1 102-10; 6.5.2 303–1 401–2; 401–3;
“qualitative”; 2 = “quantitative”; 3 = “quantitative time series”; 4 =
201-1 404–1; 404–2;
404–3; 405–1;
“quantitative time series and future quantitative goal”). The sum of the
405-2 assigned values is then normalized regarding the maximum obtainable
12.5.1 417–1 7.1.1 302–2 8.5.2 102-8; 401–1; value. The greater the value of the SDG Commitment Index, the greater
405-1 is the effort of a company in contributing to SDGs by monitoring prog­
16.5.2 205-1; 7.1.2 302–1 8.6.1 401–1
ress and by aiming for improvement. The SDG Commitment Index
205–2;
205-3 measures the quality of the information disclosed, i.e., the accuracy of
17.7.1 201–1 7.2.1 302-1; 302-2 8.7.1 408-1; 409-1 SDG reporting at an indicator level.
17.11.1 102–6 7.3.1 302-1; 302–2; 8.8.1 403-1; 403–2; In the fourth phase (Fig. 1), the assessment framework prescribes the
302–3; 302–4; 403–3; 403–4;
realization of a “SDG matrix”: the Coverage Index is represented on the
302-5 402–1; 403–5;
403-7
y-axis and the Commitment Index on the x-axis (see Fig. 2 in Section 6).
8.4.1 301-1; 301–2; 8.8.2 102-41; 406–1; The matrix has four identical quadrants; and the position of a company
301–3; 302–1; 407–1; 414–1; in one of the quadrants illustrates how much it is involved in reporting
302–2; 302–3; 414–2; 403–8; and in managing SDGs, especially if compared to other ones in the same
302–4; 302–5; 403–9; 403-10
sector:
303-3
9.4.1 305-1; 305–2; 10.3.1 102-8; 401–1;
305-3 404–1; 404–3; • The top right is the high commitment/high coverage (HH) quadrant.
405-2 These companies are both aware and committed to SDGs. They
11.4.1 304–4 16.5.2 415–1 disclose a high number of indicators (coverage) and provide accu­
11.6.1 306–2 16.7.2 102-21; 102–22;
11.6.2 305–7 102–24; 102–29;
racy of reported data (commitment). Therefore, the companies
102–37; 403-4 placed in this quadrant show an appropriate contribution to SDGs.
12.2.1 301-1; 301–2; 17.7.1 415–1 • The bottom right shows the high commitment/low coverage (HL)
302–1; 302–2; quadrant. The companies belonging to this quadrant are managing
302–3; 302–4;
and monitoring SDGs utilizing a step-by-step strategy: high accuracy
302–5; 303-3
12.2.2 301-1; 301–3; of data provided in a limited number of indicators. These companies
303-3 are committed to contributing to SDGs, but they should measure and
12.4.1 303–1 monitor more indicators to consolidate their commitment and move
12.4.2 305-1; 305–2; towards the HH quadrant.
305–3; 305–6;
305–7; 306–1;
• The top left is the low commitment/high coverage (LH) quadrant. In
306–2; 306–3; this quadrant, the companies have an elevated awareness of SDGs,
306-4 but they are barely committed to report and to monitor SGDs’
12.5.1 301-2; 301–3; progress. These companies are engaging in SDG reporting and
306-2
monitoring through an incremental improvement strategy: a good

5
A. Calabrese et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 319 (2021) 128624

Fig. 2. Positioning matrices of selected companies: TBL general, economic, environmental, and social dimensions.

level of coverage, but a very low effort in terms of measurement and ongoing pressure to address a wide range of sustainability re­
monitoring. These companies aim to contribute positively to SDGs, sponsibilities that go beyond the legal and environmental (Agudelo
as they report a large number of indicators, but they should increase et al., 2020). Energy companies must adequately respond to stakeholder
the level of accuracy of the data provided moving towards the HH expectations, local and international regulatory frameworks, and in­
quadrant. ternational agreements such as the SDGs (Agudelo et al., 2020).
• At the bottom left, there is the low commitment/low coverage (LL) Furthermore, energy companies are particularly well suited to provide
quadrant. The companies positioned in this quadrant are barely an example of the application of the framework because according to
aware (low coverage) and are doing little toward SDG managing and Aguilera-Caracuel et al. (2017) and Szczepankiewicz and Mucko (2016)
monitoring (low commitment). Poor performance in SDG reporting they have a strategic vision of sustainability as a tool to obtain
shows that these companies are far behind their competitors in competitive advantages through a clear differentiation from their com­
contributing to the achievement of the SDGs. These companies petitors. Also, Agudelo et al. (2020) note that the highest level of
should engage in reporting a higher number of indicators providing attention of researchers in this field has been from Europe. The next
not only their qualitative assessment, but also measuring and section presents an illustrative application of the proposed framework
monitoring these indicators over time. It is expected that through on a set of companies belonging to the European electricity industry to
corrective actions and key interventions the companies located analyze their level of engagement in managing and in monitoring their
within this area will move to the other quadrants until reaching the contributions to SDGs.
HH quadrant.
4. Results and discussion
Finally, the SDG matrix displays the company’s values of the two
indices of coverage (completeness) and commitment (accuracy) of the In the illustrative example, the Italian electricity distribution com­
SDG reporting; thus allowing the company’s managers both a quick pany A2A SPA (hereafter A2A) is supposed to use the assessment
comparison with competitors and an overview of the overall behaviour framework proposed in this paper to identify its positioning compared to
of the sector regarding the measurement and monitoring of the SDGs. its main European competitors regarding its SDG disclosure in sustain­
The matrix and the two indices make it possible to identify areas of ability reporting. To target the major A2A’s European competitors, the
intervention, i.e., SDG indicators (consequently targets and goals) to first 15 electricity distribution companies of the “Stoxx Europe 600
which the company should pay more attention. The resulting analysis Utilities” have been considered for comparison (A2A is among them.).
makes it possible to orient the reporting process towards those areas that The competitors have been reduced to the eight electricity utilities that
have the greatest need for accuracy and coverage. Moreover, the anal­ followed the GRI standard in sustainability reporting: E.ON (Germany),
ysis allows companies’ managers to identify the most suitable strategies Enel (Italy), RWE (Germany), SSE (the United Kingdom), Iberdrola
for sustainability development toward SDG achievement. The evolu­ (Spain), Vattenfall (Sweden), EnBW (Germany), EDP Energias de
tionary trajectory of a company that aims to actively contribute to SDGs Portugal (Portugal). It is necessary to specify that the application of the
must be directed towards the HH quadrant, but also companies already framework to A2A presented in this section is made by way of example
in this quadrant should aim to continually improve moving upwards by and does not constitute an A2A’s case study. In fact, A2A’s eight com­
showing more awareness and to the right by giving more commitment. petitors could also use this analysis for their benefit.
To evaluate the suitability of the proposed framework, the next The SDG matrices of Fig. 2 are designed to illustrate to A2A’s man­
section of the paper illustrates how it should be applied in practice. agers how the other electricity distribution companies are positioned
Energy companies are particularly fit for this purpose because they have with respect to A2A regarding their involvement in managing and in
a reactive or proactive approach to sustainability as they are exposed to monitoring their contribution to SDGs. Indeed, the matrices show A2A’s

6
A. Calabrese et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 319 (2021) 128624

performance in the two dimensions of SDG coverage and commitment, demonstrates a greater accuracy in trying to monitor the indicators that
allowing both a quick comparison with its competitors and an overview show Enel’s priorities toward SDGs. These companies are well aware
of the overall behaviour of the sector regarding the SDGs. and committed to SDGs’ achievement. Besides in all the matrices except
The TBL matrix in Fig. 2 shows A2A and four of its competitors the economic one, three of the nine companies (SSE, Vattenfall and E.
(Iberdrola, Enel, EDP and RWE) in the HH quadrant, three competitors ON) are engaged in a step-by-step strategy in which few SDGs indicators
(SSE, Vattenfall and E.ON) in the HL quadrant, one (EnBW) in the LH are pursued and carefully monitored. Further analysis of the positioning
quadrant, and none in the LL quadrant. Overall, the major players of the matrices shows that EnBW is performing an incremental improvement
electricity distribution sector display a good awareness and commitment strategy indicating that this company has a high awareness of SDGs and
to SDGs, also noting that EnBW and SSE are very close to the HH that its monitoring process should be improved. The A2A’s SDG
quadrant. In particular, the value of A2A’s SDG Coverage Index is 58% reporting strategy appears well equilibrated in the TBL; and environ­
against the competitors’ average value of 61%; the value of A2A’s SDG mental matrices seemingly follow Enel’s kind of strategy, incremental as
Commitment Index is 59% against the competitors’ average value of EnBW’s one in the economic matrix and a step-by-step strategy in the
62%. Observing the SDG general matrix, A2A’s managers become aware social one.
that A2A is in the HH quadrant. Therefore, A2A is well positioned and The analysis of each positioning matrix demonstrates that the most
also shows a balanced level of the two indices; but they are slightly important companies of the electricity distribution sector have a high
below the average performance of A2A’s main companies in the sector. level of awareness and commitment to the SDGs, particularly to the
In the economic matrix of Fig. 2, A2A changes quadrant; and it is environmental dimension of the TBL. The companies belonging to this
collocated in the LH quadrant with two of its competitors (EnBW and sector are especially sensitive to environmental issues, as their business
RWE). Four competitors (Iberdrola, Enel, EDP and SSE) are in the HH activities have potential negative externalities regarding environmental
quadrant, one (E.ON) in the HL quadrant, and one (Vattenfall) in the LL impact (Agudelo et al., 2020). Moreover, energy companies consider
quadrant. The major European companies of the electricity distribution sustainability as a strategic framework that can help achieve competi­
sector show overall a good awareness and an adequate commitment to tive advantages through competitive differentiation (Aguilera-Caracuel
the SDGs of the economic dimension, displaying however a lower et al., 2017; Szczepankiewicz and Mucko, 2016).
Commitment Index than the general one except for EDP. In particular, Fig. 3 of this exemplificative application shows to A2A’s managers
the value of A2A’s SDG Coverage Index in the economic matrix is 83% the SDG Coverage and Commitment Indices of A2A and its competitors
against the competitors’ average value of 67%; the value of A2A’s SDG regarding their involvement in managing and in monitoring their
Commitment Index is 42% against the competitors’ average value of contribution to SDGs according to a single SDG. A2A performs values
51%. The SDG economic matrix reveals to A2A’s managers that A2A has higher than its competitors’ average ones both in the Coverage and
an optimal level of coverage, but shows a very low effort in terms of Commitment Indices in three SDGs: SDG4 (quality education) scores
measurement and monitoring accuracy. Even if A2A reports a large respectively 100% against 56%, and 75% against 42%; SDG6 (clean
number of indicators (above the sector average), the company should water and sanitation) 56% against 51%, and 55% against 52%; SDG10
dedicate a greater number of resources to increase the level of accuracy (reducing inequalities) 83% against 74%, and 80% against 67%. Instead,
of the data provided. both A2A’s indices score values much lower than its competitors’ in two
The environmental matrix of Fig. 2 portrays A2A once again in the SDGs: SDG2 (zero hunger) with 0% against 56%, and 0% against 22%;
HH quadrant with four of its competitors (Iberdrola, Enel, EDP and and SDG11 (sustainable cities and communities) with 50% against 56%,
EnBW), and the other four competitors (RWE, SSE, Vattenfall and E.ON) and 50% against 57%. The A2A’s Coverage Index is above the com­
in the HL quadrant, none in the LH and the LL quadrants. In the SDG petitors’ average value in eight out of thirteen SDGs (SDG4, SDG5,
environmental dimension, the analyzed companies present a good SDG6, SDG9, SDG10, SDG12, SDG16, SDG17); and A2A’s Commitment
awareness and the highest commitment to SDGs except for E.ON that Index is above the average value in five out of thirteen SDGs (SDG3,
performs better in the social dimension. Precisely, the value of A2A’s SDG4, SDG6, SDG8, SDG10).
SDG Coverage Index is 61% against the competitors’ average value of Also, Fig. 3 allows a comparison with the best performers among
62%; the value of A2A’s SDG Commitment Index is 65% against the A2A’s competitors. Analyzing the two best practices of the sector,
competitors’ average value of 69%. The SDG environmental matrix re­ Iberdrola and Enel, the first one has a Coverage Index greater or equal to
veals that A2A has a good and balanced level of the two indices, but its Enel’s and A2A’s in all the SDGs; but Iberdrola’s Commitment Index is
efforts in terms of SDG reporting should increase because A2A falls always below Enel’s except for the SDG2, and below A2A’s in SDG3,
slightly short of its competitors. SDG6, SDG8, SDG10, and SDG12. The analysis of the single SDG in­
Finally, in the social matrix of Fig. 2, the position of A2A shifts in the dicates to A2A’s managers that the company is doing well in many areas,
HL quadrant with three of its competitors (SSE, Vattenfall and E.ON), but it should improve SDG reporting in other ones. A2A completely lacks
two competitors (Iberdrola and Enel) in the HH quadrant, three (EDP, in reporting SDG2, and the company should increase the number of
EnBW and RWE) in the LH quadrant, and none in the LL quadrant. disclosed indicators of SDG3, SDG5, SDG8, and SDG11. Finally, A2A’s
Specifically, the value of A2A’s SDG Coverage Index in the environ­ SDG reporting should improve the measurement and monitoring of
mental matrix is 46% against the competitors’ average value of 57%; the SDG5, SDG7, SDG9, SDG11, SDG16, SDG17.
value of A2A’s SDG Commitment Index is 61% against the competitors’ Furthermore, the proposed framework is the only one in the litera­
average value of 57%. The companies under study present adequate and ture that analyzes the sustainability reports at the SDG indicator level.
balanced values of the two indices in the social dimension, showing This allows A2A’s decision makers to identify the critical areas that need
however the lowest average Coverage Index. Observing the SDG social to be improved through targeted investments. The analysis at the SDG
matrix, A2A’s managers have become aware that A2A has an inadequate indicator level permits managers to individuate the corresponding GRI
level of coverage balanced by a good effort in terms of measurement and indicators that are absent or that need to be improved in terms of ac­
monitoring accuracy. A2A should measure and monitor a larger number curacy and quality of disclosed information. In this illustrative example,
of indicators and consolidate its high commitment. A2A shows a good level of the two indices in the environmental area, but
Moreover, Fig. 2 allows a comparison with the best performers SDG reporting should improve because A2A falls slightly short of its
among A2A’s competitors. Among the analyzed companies, the sus­ competitors. Observing the analysis on the single SDG, A2A’s managers
tainability strategies of the two best practices are similar; but they differ could initially concentrate their attention on increasing the number of
in approach. Iberdrola has more thorough reporting, whereas Enel is disclosed indicators of SDG11. The proposed framework offers A2A’s
more accurate and detailed. Iberdrola is investing in covering all aspects managers the possibility of detecting the SDG indicators, and conse­
of internally actionable SDGs, yet Enel’s choice undoubtedly quently the associated GRI indicators that should be the object of their

7
A. Calabrese et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 319 (2021) 128624

Fig. 3. SDG Coverage and Commitment Indices of selected companies: general and by company.

attention. Regarding SDG11, A2A′ s report lacks GRI indicator 305–7 in particular, in their quest for innovation as SDG9 (industry, innova­
(nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and other significant air emissions), tion, and infrastructure) shows the highest commitment value. These
which is associated with SDG indicator 11.6.2 (annual mean levels of findings reinforce the statements of Sullivan et al. (2018), Hopper
fine particulate matter in cities, population-weighted). (2019), and Moldavska and Welo (2019) regarding incentives for the
In this exemplificative application, there are only five SDGs where 2030 Agenda for innovations in the private sector. In fact, Sullivan et al.
the commitment value is higher than the coverage one (SDG3, SDG6, (2018) stress the necessity to emphasize sustainability-based innovation
SDG7, SDG8 and SDG11) and their difference is minimal (from 2% to as a source of competitive advantage.
8%). Whereas in the other SDGs, the coverage value is much greater than
the commitment one with the greatest differences observed in SDG2 5. Conclusions
(60%), SDG17 (36%), and SDG5 (30%). This discrepancy between
coverage and commitment raises a question about the presence of a The private sector’s role in achieving SDGs cannot be under­
possible symbolic approach in SDG disclosure (e.g., Silva, 2021; van der estimated because of its ability to influence stakeholders, to mobilize
Waal and Thijssens, 2020). resources, and to innovate. The introduction of the seventeen SDGs by
Overall, the 2030 Agenda appears to be a driving force for the major the UN in 2015 has been seen by the private sector as a major driving
players of the European electricity distribution sector in many areas and, force toward sustainability achievement (Topple et al., 2017). The

8
A. Calabrese et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 319 (2021) 128624

number of companies that contribute to the SDGs through their contributed equally and are listed in alphabetical order. Nathan Lev­
reporting practices are increasing (Ordonez-Ponce and Khare, 2020; ialdi Ghiron: The authors contributed equally and are listed in alpha­
PWC, 2019; Rosati and Faria, 2019a). In this context, this paper focuses betical order. Roberth Andres Villazon Montalvan: The authors
on understanding the companies’ efforts in contributing to SDGs by contributed equally and are listed in alphabetical order.
analyzing SDG reporting at an indicator level. The proposed framework
is based on the correspondence between SDG indicators and GRI in­
Declaration of competing interest
dicators, and it features 152 correspondences in which 13 SDGs and 34
targets and 46 indicators are present. The performed content analysis
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
evidences the interrelated and complementary aspects of the goals, as
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
some indicators of the same goal are classified into two of the three areas
the work reported in this paper.
of the TBL. The outcomes of content analyses indicate that the number of
total internally actionable indicators are not equally presented for each
References
SDG, and even nonexistent for some (e.g., SDG1, end poverty; SDG13,
climate action; SDG14, life below water; and SDG15, life on land). Adams, C., 2017. Conceptualizing the contemporary corporate value creation process.
The above proposed framework enriches SDG assessment and man­ Account Audit. Account. J. 30 (4), 906–931. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-04-
agement aiding companies in recognizing the quality of their sustain­ 2016-2529.
Agudelo, M.A.L., Johannsdottir, L., Davidsdottir, B., 2020. Drivers that motivate energy
ability reports by identifying the completeness and accuracy of reporting companies to be responsible. A systematic literature review of Corporate Social
on SDGs at an indicator level. This framework presents opportunities for Responsibility in the energy sector. J. Clean. Prod. 247, 119094.
practice and research. Researchers can use the framework to further Aguilera-Caracuel, J., Guerrero-Villegas, J., García-Sanchez, E., 2017. Reputation of
multinational companies: corporate social responsibility and internationalization.
investigate how companies choose a strategy aimed at contributing to Eur. J. Manag. Bus. Econ. 26 (3), 329–346.
the SDGs through the measurement and monitoring of SDG indicators. Barbier, E., Burgess, J., 2017. The Sustainable Development Goals and the systems
The use of the Coverage and Commitment Indices, combined in the approach to sustainability. Econ.: Open 11 (2017–18), 1–22. https://doi.org/
10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2017-28.
positing matrix, evidences that some companies prefer to concentrate on
Bebbington, J., Unerman, J., 2018. Achieving the united Nations sustainable
reporting a limited number of SDG indicators and to focus on reporting development goals: an enabling role for accounting research. Account Audit.
accuracy. Other companies adopt a different strategy: aiming to report Account. J. 31 (1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-05-2017-2929.
Buhmann, K., Jonsson, J., Fisker, M., 2019. Do no harm” and “do more good” too:
as many SDG indicators as possible without going into them (for
connecting the SDGs with business and human rights and political CSR theory. Corp.
example, providing only a qualitative description or not stating a future Govern.: Int. J. Bus. Soc. 19 (3), 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-01-2018-
goal). Moreover, practitioners can use the developed framework as a 0030.
strategic management tool allowing corporate decision makers to Caiado, R., Leal Filho, W., Quelhas, O., Nascimento, D., Ávila, L., 2018. A literature-
based review on potentials and constraints in the implementation of the sustainable
analyze the strategic positioning of a company with respect to compet­ development goals. J. Clean. Prod. 198, 1276–1288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
itors in the same sector. Companies can use the proposed framework to jclepro.2018.07.102.
compare the quality of their sustainability reports with their competi­ Calabrese, A., Costa, R., Ghiron, N.L., Tiburzi, L., Pedersen, E.R.G., 2021. How
sustainable-orientated service innovation strategies are contributing to the
tors. These comparisons provide decision makers with feedback to sustainable development goals. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 169, 120816.
improve the quality of information disclosed in sustainability reports, to Dahlmann, F., Stubbs, W., Griggs, D., Morell, K., 2019. Corporate actors, the UN
understand how the company is positioned regarding competitors, and sustainable development goals and earth system governance: a research agenda.
Anthropocene Rev. 6 (1–2), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/
to individuate sustainability strategies regarding SDGs. Moreover, the 2053019619848217.
proposed framework offers an overview of the overall behaviour of the Dang, H.H., Fu, H., Serajuddin, U., 2019. Tracking the Sustainable Development Goals:
sector regarding the measurement and monitoring of the SDGs. Emerging Measurement Challenges and Further Reflections, GLO Discussion Paper,
No. 327. Global Labor Organization (GLO), Maastricht.
SDG assessment and management allow companies to identify the
Di Vaio, A., Varriale, L., 2020. SDGs and airport sustainable performance: evidence from
most suitable strategies for sustainability development toward SDG Italy on organisational, accounting and reporting practices through financial and
achievement. Management can use the results of the framework to non-financial disclosure. J. Clean. Prod. 249, 119431.
García-Sánchez, I., Rodríguez-Ariza, L., Aibar-Guzmán, B., Aibar-Guzmán, C., 2020. Do
reflect critically upon the actual company strategy and potentially
institutional investors drive corporate transparency regarding business contribution
change it, while external stakeholders can productively provide sug­ to the sustainable development goals? Bus. Strat. Environ. 29 (5), 2019–2036.
gestions for future changes and be more explicit in their requests. The Gómez-Bezares, F., Przychodzen, W., Przychodzen, J., 2017. Bridging the Gap: how
illustrative example in Section 4 has shown how companies’ managers sustainable development can help companies create shareholder value and improve
financial performance. Bus. Ethics Eur. Rev. 26, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/
could use the SDG matrix and indices to analyze the relative position of a beer.12135.
limited group of major competing companies about their involvement in GRI (Global Reporting Initiative), 2018a. GRI 101. Foundation 2016, Amsterdam.
managing and in monitoring their contribution to SDGs. GRI (Global Reporting Initiative), 2018b. Business Reporting on the SDGs from. https://
www.globalreporting.org/information/sdgs/pages/reporting-on-the-sdgs.aspx.
The paper has two main limitations. First, by analyzing a limited (Accessed 7 November 2019).
number of companies, the results of the application cannot be general­ GRI (Global Reporting Initiative), 2020. Linking the SDGs and the GRI Standards.
ized and meaningful statistical analysis cannot be conducted. It is Amsterdam.
GRI (Global Reporting Initiative), UN GC (United Nations Global Compact), WBCSD
necessary to remember that the application of the framework to A2A (World Business Council for Sustainable Development), 2015. SDG Compass. The
does not constitute a case study of A2A, which has been chosen arbi­ Guide for Business Action on the SDGs. Retrieved from. http://sdgcompass.org/.
trarily only to show practitioners and managers how to use the frame­ Grainger-Brown, J., Malekpour, S., 2019. Implementing the sustainable development
goals: a review of strategic tools and frameworks available to organisations.
work. Secondly, the results are limited by the selection of a specific
Sustainability 11 (5), 1381.
sector. Future research aims to use the framework to compare how Gunawan, J., Permatasari, P., Tilt, C., 2020. Sustainable development goal disclosures:
companies from different sectors are reporting and contributing to the do they support responsible consumption and production? J. Clean. Prod. 246,
118989.
SDGs. Indeed, the positioning matrix should help monitor a sector’s
Gupta, J., Vegelin, C., 2016. Sustainable development goals and inclusive development.
progress over time towards SDG contribution and develop cross-sector Int. Environ. Agreements Polit. Law Econ. 16 (3), 433–448. https://doi.org/
assessments. 10.1007/s10784-016-9323-z.
Hák, T., Janousková, S., Moldan, B., 2016. Sustainable Development Goals: a need for
relevant indicators. Ecol. Indicat. 60, 565–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
CRediT authorship contribution statement ecolind.2015.08.003.
Hopper, T., 2019. Stop accounting myopia: – think globally: a polemic. J. Account.
Armando Calabrese: The authors contributed equally and are listed Organ. Change 15 (1), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAOC-12-2017-0115.
Horne, J., Recker, M., Michelfelder, I., Jay, J., Kratzer, J., 2020. Exploring
in alphabetical order. Roberta Costa: The authors contributed equally entrepreneurship related to the sustainable development goals-mapping new venture
and are listed in alphabetical order. Massimo Gastaldi: The authors activities with semi-automated content analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 242, 118052.

9
A. Calabrese et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 319 (2021) 128624

Ike, M., Donovan, J.D., Topple, C., Masli, E.K., 2019. The process of selecting and PWC, 2019. SDG Reporting Challenge. Creating a Strategy for a Better World: How the
prioritising corporate sustainability issues: insights for achieving the Sustainable Sustainable Development Goals Can Provide the Framework for Business to Deliver
Development Goals. J. Clean. Prod. 236, 117661. Progress on Our Global Challenges. Retrieved at: https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/su
Isaksson, R., 2018. Revisiting the triple bottom line. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 217, stainability/SDG/sdg-2019.pdf.
425–436. https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP180381. Rauter, R., Jonker, J., Baumgartner, R.J., 2017. Going one’s own way: drivers in
Isaksson, R., 2019. A proposed preliminary maturity grid for assessing sustainability developing business models for sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 144–154. https://
reporting based on quality management principles. TQM J. 31 (3), 451–466. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.104.
doi.org/10.1108/TQM-12-2017-0167. Rosati, F., Faria, L., 2019a. Adressing the SDGs in sustainability reports: the relationship
Jayasooria, D., 2016. Sustainable development goals and social work: opportunities and with institutional factors. J. Clean. Prod. 215, 1312–1326. https://doi.org/10.1016/
challenges for social work practice in Malaysia. J. Hum. Right. Soc. Work 1 (1), j.jclepro.2018.12.107.
19–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41134-016-0007-y. Rosati, F., Faria, L.G.D., 2019b. Business contribution to the Sustainable Development
KPMG, 2018. How to Report on the SDGs: what Good Looks like and Why it Matters. Agenda: organizational factors related to early adoption of SDG reporting. Corp. Soc.
Switzerland. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 26 (3), 588–597.
Leagnavar, P., Leone, F., Nagasaki, T., 2016. Measuring Impact: How Business Accelerates Saldaña, J., 2010. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Sage, London.
the Sustainable Development Goals. Report Produced by Business Call To Action And the Schönherr, N., Findler, F., Martinuzzi, A., 2017. Exploring the interface of CSR and the
Global Reporting Initiative. Istanbul & Amsterdam: UNDP & GRI. Retrieved 10 18, sustainable development goals. Transnatl. Corp. 24/3, 33–47. https://doi.org/
2019, from. https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/Meassuring%20 10.18356/cfb5b8b6-en.
Impact_BCtA_GRI.pdf. Silva, S., 2021. Corporate contributions to the Sustainable Development Goals: an
LeBlanc, D., 2015. Towards integration at last? The sustainable development goals as a empirical analysis informed by legitimacy theory. J. Clean. Prod. 292, 125962.
network of targets. Sustain. Dev. 23, 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1582. Stafford-Smith, M., Griggs, D., Gaffney, O., Ullah, F., Reyers, B., Kanie, N., Stigson, B.,
Lozano, R., Nummert, B., Ceulemans, K., 2016. Elucidating the relationship between Shrivastava, P., Leach, M., O’Connell, D., 2016. Integration: the key to implementing
sustainability reporting and organisational change management for sustainability. the sustainable development goals. Sustain. Sci. 12, 911–919. https://doi.org/
J. Clean. Prod. 125, 168–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.021. 10.1007/s11625-016-0383-3.
Madsen, H.L., 2020. Business model innovation and the global ecosystem for sustainable Stevens, C., Kanie, N., 2016. The transformative potential of the sustainable development
development. J. Clean. Prod. 247, 119102. goals (SDGs). Int. Environ. Agreements 16 (3), 393–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Madsen, H.L., Ulhøi, J.P., 2021. Sustainable visioning: Re-framing strategic vision to s10784-016-9324-y.
enable a sustainable corporate transformation. J. Clean. Prod. 288, 125602. Sullivan, K., Thomas, S., Rosano, M., 2018. Using industrial ecology and strategic
Miles, M., Huberman, M., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: an Expanded Sourcebook. management concepts to pursue the sustainable development goals. J. Clean. Prod.
Sage, California. 174, 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.201.
Moldavska, A., Welo, T., 2019. A Holistic approach to corporate sustainability Szczepankiewicz, E.I., Mucko, P., 2016. CSR reporting practices of polish energy and
assessment: incorporating sustainable development goals into sustainable mining companies. Sustainability 8 (2).
manufacturing performance evaluation. J. Manuf. Syst. 50, 53–68. https://doi.org/ Szennay, Á., Szigeti, C., Kovács, N., Szabó, D., 2019. Through the blurry looking
10.1016/j.jmsy.2018.11.004. glass—SDGs in the GRI reports. Resources 8 (101), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/
Morioka, S.N., Bolis, I., Evans, S., Carvalho, M.M., 2017. Transforming sustainability resources8020101.
challenges into competitive advantage: multiple case studies kaleidoscope Topple, C., Donovan, J., Masli, E., Borgert, T., 2017. Corporate Sustainability
converging into sustainable business models. J. Clean. Prod. 167, 723–738. https:// Assessments: MNE engagement with sustainable development and the SDGs. In:
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.118. U. N. (UNCTAD), Transnational Corporations, vol. 24, pp. 61–72 (Geneve).
Muff, K., Kapalka, A., Dyllick, T., 2017. The Gap Frame - translating the SDGs into Tsalis, T.A., Malamateniou, K.E., Koulouriotis, D., Nikolaou, I.E., 2020. New challenges
relevant national grand challenges for strategic business opportunities. Int. J. Manag. for corporate sustainability reporting: United Nations’ 2030 agenda for sustainable
Educ. 15, 363–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2017.03.004. development and the sustainable development goals. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ.
Odważny, F., Wojtkowiak, D., Cyplik, P., Adamczak, M., 2019. Concept for measuring Manag.
organizational maturity supporting sustainable development goals. LogForum 15 United Nations, 2015. Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
(2), 237–247. https://doi.org/10.17270/J.LOG.2019.321. Development A/RES/70/1. Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly On 25
Ogbeibu, S., Emelifeonwu, J., Senadjki, A., Gaskin, J., Kaivo-oja, J., 2020. Technological September 2015, p. 35. Paris. Retrieved from. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_d
turbulence and greening of team creativity, product innovation, and human resource oc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E.
management: implications for sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 244, 118703. United Nations, 2017. Global Indicator Framework for the Sustainable Development
Ogbeibu, S., Senadjki, A., Emelifeonwu, J., Gaskin, J., Pereira, V., 2021a. Augmenting Goals and Targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. UN Resolution
environmental sustainability through the exchange of green creative ideas–evidence A/RES/71/313. New York. Retrieved 11 20, 2019. https://unstats.un.
from an emerging economy. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 26, 275–287. org/sdgs/indicators/Global Indicator Framework_A. RES. 71.313 Annex.pdf.
Ogbeibu, S., Jabbour, C.J.C., Gaskin, J., Senadjki, A., Hughes, M., 2021b. Leveraging van der Waal, J.W., Thijssens, T., Maas, K., 2021. The innovative contribution of
STARA competencies and green creativity to boost green organisational innovative multinational enterprises to the Sustainable Development Goals. J. Clean. Prod. 285,
evidence: a praxis for sustainable development. Bus. Strat. Environ. 125319.
Ordonez-Ponce, E., Khare, A., 2020. GRI 300 as a measurement tool for the United van der Waal, J.W., Thijssens, T., 2020. Corporate involvement in sustainable
Nations sustainable development goals: assessing the impact of car makers on development goals: exploring the territory. J. Clean. Prod. 252, 119625.
sustainability. J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 1–29. Van Zanten, J.A., Van Tulder, R., 2018. Multinational enterprises and the Sustainable
Pizzi, S., Caputo, A., Corvino, A., Venturelli, A., 2020a. Management research and the UN Development Goals: an institutional approach to corporate engagement. J. Int. Bus.
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): a bibliometric investigation and systematic Policy 1 (3–4), 208–233. https://doi.org/10.1057/s42214-018-0008-x.
review. J. Clean. Prod. 124033. Vazquez-Brust, D., Piao, R.S., de Melo, M.F.D.S., Yaryd, R.T., Carvalho, M.M., 2020. The
Pizzi, S., Rosati, F., Venturelli, A., 2020b. The Determinants of Business Contribution to governance of collaboration for sustainable development: exploring the “black box”.
the 2030 Agenda: Introducing the SDG Reporting Score. Bus. Strat. Environ. J. Clean. Prod. 256, 120260.
PWC, 2018. From Promise to Reality: Does Business Really Care about the SDGs? and
what Needs to Happen to Turn Words into Action. PwC, London.

10