CBRD

Working Paper 2017-03

Sustainability reporting in the

Philippines: The cases of
Manila Water Company, Inc. and
Maynilad Water Services, Inc.

Ms. Shieradel V. Jimenez

April 2017
CBRD Working Paper
2017-03

Sustainability reporting in the

Philippines: The cases of
Manila Water Company, Inc. and
Maynilad Water Services, Inc.

Ms. Shieradel V. Jimenez

De La Salle University
April 2017

The CBRD Working Paper Series constitutes studies that are preliminary and
subject to further revisions. They are being circulated in a limited number of copies
only for purposes of soliciting comments and suggestions for further refinements.
The studies under the Series are unedited and unreviewed. The views and opinions
expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the
Center. Not for quotation without permission from the author(s) and the Center.

© 2017 DLSU-CBRD
 Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction 6

1.1 Background of the Study 6

1.2 Research Problems 6
1.3 Research Objectives 8
1.4 Proposition of the Study 8
1.5 Significance of the Study 8
1.6 Scope, Limitations, and Delimitation 9

2.0 Review of Related Literature 10

2.1 Literature Overview 10

2.2 Origins of Sustainability Reporting 10
2.3 The Arguments against Sustainability Reporting 11
2.4 The Arguments for Sustainability Reporting 12
2.5 Enter Content Analysis 13
2.6 Research Gap 14

3.0 Research Framework, Design, and Methodology 16

3.1 Theoretical Framework 16

3.1.1 Legitimization Theory 16

3.1.2 Systems Theory 16

3.2 Operational Framework 17

3.2.1 The GRI’s Sustainability Reporting Framework 18

3.2.2 Systems Thinking 19

3.3 Data Collection Procedure, Processing and Analysis 20

4.0 Research Context 22

4.1 Introduction 22
4.2 Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System 22
4.3 Company Profiles 23

4.3.1 Manila Water Company, Inc. 23

4.3.2 Manynilad Water Services, Inc. 24

5.0 Cross Case Analysis 26

5.1 Overview 26
5.2 Sustainability Dimensions Addressed 26
5.3 Under-developed Sustainability Dimensions 27
 5.3.1 Economic Dimension Reporting 28
5.3.2 Environmental Dimension Reporting 28
5.3.3 Social Dimension Reporting 30

5.3.3.1 Labor Practices and Decent Work Reporting 30

5.3.3.2 Human Rights Reporting 30
5.3.3.3 Society Reporting 31
5.3.3.4 Product Responsibility Reporting 32

5.4 Evidence/Non-Evidence of Systems Thinking 33

5.4.1 Manila Water Company, Inc. 33

5.4.2 Maynilad Water Services, Inc. 35

6.0 Conclusion and Recommendations 37

6.1 Conclusion 37
6.2 Recommendations 39

References 40
 List of Tables
Table 1 GRI G4 Reporting Guidelines: Specific Standard Disclosures 18
Table 2 Proposed Scoring System based on GRI G4 Performance Indicators 21
Table 3 Sustainability Reporting Frameworks of Manila Water Company, Inc.,
2004-2015 24
Table 4 Sustainability Reporting Frameworks of Maynilad Water Services, Inc.,
2011-2015 25
Table 5 Scores of the reports based on GRI G4 performance indicators 26
Table 6 Number of indicators not reported by the sustainability reports 27
Table 7 Scores on economic aspects 28
Table 8 Scores on environmental aspects 29
Table 9 Scores on labor practices and decent work under the social dimension 30
Table 10 Scores on human rights under the social dimension 31
Table 11 Scores on society under the social dimension 32
Table 12 Scores on product responsibility under the social dimension 32
 Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Various corporate scandals have led to various stakeholders’ clamor for increased
transparency with regards to how corporations achieve their goals (Eccles, Serafeim, & Ionannou,
2012; KPMG, 2008). The recognition of corporations’ expanded role in the community has led to
the increasing consideration of both social and environmental concerns balanced with the
economic concern (Elkington as cited in Brown, de Jong, & Lessidrenska, 2009). This
phenomenon became known as the triple bottom line or corporate sustainability.
An implication of this triple bottom line (TBL) approach is the disclosure of non-financial
information that will increase stakeholder understanding of a corporation’s sustainability-related
activities (Suggett & Goodsir, 2002). These non-financial information disclosure take several types
and one of these is the sustainability report (KPMG, UNEP, GRI, & CCGA, 2016) Sustainability
reports (SRs) are reports that contain information as to how a company was able to “manage and
improve its economic, environmental and social effectiveness and efficiency in the reporting
period and integrate these aspects in a sustainability management system” (Daub, 2007, p. 76).
Sustainability reporting fulfills numerous functions for a company issuing it. Primary
among these functions is that it provides a venue to legitimize a corporation’s continued existence.
Legitimization is very important to a corporation because it “assures a sustained supply of
resources - finances from shareholders and investors; cash flow from customers; license to operate
from regulators; and good corporate image from other stakeholders, particularly the community”
(Asif et al., 2012, p.322). As such, it is then not surprising that the trend of increasing non-financial
disclosure of corporations is mainly driven by the increase in government oversight (KPMG,
2015).
Various authors have criticized this trend (Milne & Gray, 2013; Moneva, Archel, & Correa,
2006; Sridhar & Jones, 2013). These authors’ main contention is that sustainability reports do not
promote sustainability but confuses people because sustainability has been misappropriated to fit
business interests. SRs promote this in such a way that corporations have bypassed key
sustainability issues (Milne & Gray, 2013; Moneva et al., 2006; Sridhar & Jones, 2013). One of

6
these issues is the inherent systems thinking that is required to pursue sustainability in the corporate
level.
Systems thinking necessitates that corporations think of economic, social and
environmental issues as interconnected and that addressing these require a holistic approach.
Systems theory forwards the idea that a system is made up of interrelated parts and that the whole
system is greater than the sum of its parts (Sridhar & Jones, 2013). Such systems thinking, if
employed, will be reflected in SRs.
In contrast to this, current reporting practices suggest that corporations are employing silo
thinking - the social, environmental and economic reports are usually reported in isolation. These
reports when combined in one document are seen as equal to sustainability (Sridhar & Jones,
2013). This then prevents companies to grasp the importance of systems thinking and results to a
fragmented approach when it comes to sustainability.
Majority of studies so far focused on surveying the contents of these SRs through the
employment of scoring systems (see Morhardt, Baird, & Freeman, 2002; Ratanajongkol, Davey,
& Low, 2006; Skouloudis, Evangelinos, & Kourmousis, 2010; Yadava & Sinha, 2016). These
studies in one form or another scored the amount and quality of economic, social and
environmental indicators reported. With some exceptions (Davidson & Wilson, 2006; Sridhar &
Jones, 2013), many content analysis studies contribute to this silo mentality by just merely scoring
the quality of the content and not considering how discussions about these three aspects are
integrated. This is the gap that this research study aims to fulfill.

1.2 Research Problems

Considering the situation above, the researcher patterned her first two research questions
and from Asif, Searcy and Kensah’s work in 2012 while the third one is related to select Philippine
corporations’ systems approach to sustainability: (1) What sustainability dimensions are addressed
in select Philippine corporations’ SRs? (2) What areas are under-developed in the reports and
require further improvement? (3) Do SRs issued by select Philippine corporations reflect systems
thinking in its approach to corporate sustainability?

7
1.3 Research Objectives
The study aims to derive valuable insights about the SRs of select Philippine companies
by describing and analyzing the contents of the reports. The study will do so through the
achievement of the following objectives:
1. To identify the sustainability dimensions addressed in the reports
2. To determine the areas that are under-developed in the reports and require further
improvement
3. To discover whether the information in the SR reflect a systems approach in discussing
the sustainability initiatives of the company

1.4 Proposition of the study

The importance of having propositions in guiding the conduct of research studies have been
noted by Yin (2014). The proposition of this study will be based on the claims by Sridhar and
Jones (2013) that SRs reflect silo thinking. As such, the proposition is this study is:
SRs of selected Philippine corporations SRs do not reflect systems thinking.

1.5 Significance of the Study

The increasing awareness regarding corporate sustainability and the concurrent pressures
exerted by stakeholders contribute to the increase in the number of published SRs. In general, this
study will be significant to the following groups of people for each respective reason:
To the companies being studied. Given the research objectives, the corporations can use
the results of this study to address inadequacies that might be uncovered in their reports and thus
improve the overall quality of the reports.
To other Philippine corporations. This study can shed light as to how companies who
are currently issuing sustainability reports can improve the content of their reports. Not only can
it serve as a benchmark for the corporations currently reporting but it can also serve to inspire other
Philippine corporations to report.
To the Philippine government. The results of the study can serve as the basis for the
content of a legislation that will make sustainability reporting mandatory in the country.

8
 To the readers. Currently, there are several studies regarding sustainability reports in
certain countries but there is none particular to the Philippines. As such, this will contribute to
knowledge to this field of study by providing the Philippine context.
To future researchers. Given that this is primarily an exploratory study on select
Philippine companies, the results can serve as a basis for future studies comparing corporations
across industries. It can also serve as a basis for future studies going beyond content studies and
incorporating both the collection of primary data through interviews and secondary data through
the SRs.

1.6 Scope, Limitations, and Delimitations

This study will conduct a multiple case study and will primarily employ content analysis
on the sustainability report of select Philippine corporations. As such, the study would not go
beyond the contents of the reports. Similar to what was indicated by Ratanajongkol and colleagues
(2006), the volume and quality of disclosures in the reports may not necessarily be equated with
“the level of corporate concern or activity” (p. 80).
Aside from this, it is also important to bear in mind that the recommendations generated
from the results of this study may have limited applicability to corporations belonging to the same
or different industries given that the contents of sustainability reports should be tailor fitted to the
context a company operates in (Moneva et al., 2006). The GRI framework offers guides on this in
the form of sector supplements.

9
 Chapter 2
Review of Related Literature

2.1 Literature Overview

This section of the paper aims to briefly inform the reader regarding the origins of
sustainability reporting. In doing so, the researcher sets the context for the discussion of issues
surrounding it that calls for the undertaking of this study. A brief discussion on studies conducted
so far is undertaken next. This then would provide the research gap that the researcher is seeking
to fill.

2.2 Origins of Sustainability Reporting

Sustainability reporting started in the late 1980s in the United States. The first reports
contained discussions on environmental concerns and companies use of harmful chemicals in their
operations (Daizy, Sen, & Das, 2013). The companies who voluntarily provided these nonfinancial
reports did so as a response to the public’s increasing awareness of the negative criticisms against
company operations regarding human rights violations and environmental degradation (Kolk,
2003).
The subsequent trend in the increase in the number of companies issuing SRs can be
attributed to several developments. One of these developments was when the Association of
Chartered Certified Accountants’ (ACCA) started recognizing and awarding sustainability reports
in 1990 (Daizy et al., 2013). Another significant development was the release of the United Nations
World Conference on Environment and Development Agenda 21 in 1992. Agenda 21 “encouraged
companies to report annually” (Daizy et al., 2013, p. 5). Four years later, Denmark, Norway, and
the Netherlands developed specific environmental reporting requirements (Daizy et al., 2013).
Another notable development related to sustainability reporting is the establishment of the
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) in 1997. The GRI was established by the non-profit organization
Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies (CERES) and the Tellus Institute with the
aim of establishing and developing a global sustainability reporting framework (Romero, Lin,
Jeffers, & DeGaetano, 2014). While the GRI framework is not the sole framework for reporting
on sustainability initiatives of companies, it is used almost universally by companies who do report
(KPMG, 2013).

10
 All these developments - the establishment of institutions like the GRI, the subsequent
creation of its sustainability reporting frameworks and the resultant rise in the number of
corporations creating and publishing SRs - may be viewed as a welcome development. However,
several authors have criticized this development.

2.3 The Arguments Against Sustainability Reporting

The criticisms against sustainability reporting revolves around several issues.
One group of criticisms pertains to the GRI framework itself. The GRI frameworks contain
principles and guidelines in the creation of a report. The criticisms about the frameworks include
“the confusion over its scope, the lack of a requirement for independent verification of the report
and the fact that different levels of application permit selective reporting on the performance
indicators” (Moneva, Archel, & Correa, 2006, p. 105). Thus, the GRI has paved the way for
corporations to be able to window dress their operations (Moneva et al., 2006). The same authors
pointed out that the GRI reporting does not distinguish between weak and strong sustainability
concepts and as such this has allowed companies to appropriate the term (Moneva et al., 2006).
Moneva et. al pointed to GRI’s failure in defining sustainability as the culprit for this scenario
because failing to do so has allowed companies to report any activities as sustainability initiatives
as they are free to define the concept according to how they view it (Moneva et al., 2006). Moneva
et. al. (2006) also pointed out to a more disturbing truth that a corporation’s report and its actual
behavior does not match.
Several authors have elevated this discussion to include all reporting frameworks. The main
criticism lies in the fact that sustainability reporting does not necessarily contribute to
sustainability but has been responsible for confusing people due to the misappropriation done to
the concept of sustainability (Milne & Gray, 2013; Moneva et al., 2006; Sridhar & Jones, 2013).
Sridhar and Jones (2013) forwards the idea that the various reporting frameworks has made it
easier for companies “to easily ignore or bypass key sustainability issues” (2013, p. 18). Reporting
frameworks has done so by making it easier for companies to put up a façade of sustainability by
the mere act of issuing a sustainability report (Sridhar & Jones, 2013). Sridhar and Jones (2013)
points to the lack of mandatory standards as the culprit for this scenario. As already mentioned in
the introduction, the authors forward that reporting frameworks encourage silo thinking – the
social, environmental and economic reports are usually reported in isolation. These reports when

11
combined in one document are seen as equal to sustainability (Sridhar & Jones, 2013). This then
prevents companies to grasp the importance of systems thinking and results to a fragmented
approach when it comes to sustainability. Milne and Gray (2013) agrees with this observation
when they wrote:
Through the practice of incomplete TBL (aka sustainability) reporting many
organizations seem to confuse narrow and incomplete, partial reporting with
claims to be reporting on being sustainable, actually being sustainable, or more
commonly, with claims to be moving towards sustainability (Milne & Gray, 2013,
p. 12).

Several authors point to a more fundamental issue – the issue as to whether companies can
contribute to making the world sustainable. Milne and Gray (2013) points to the fact that the mere
existence of corporations is one of the major causes of global ecological unsustainability. As such
they advocate to calling sustainability reporting as reporting on lessening the ecological
unsustainability of corporations (Milne & Gray, 2013).
With the arguments presented above, one could not help but to question the value of
corporate SRs. The following section would seek to address this issue.

2.4 The Arguments for Sustainability Reporting

Although companies had been traditionally viewed as one of the major culprits for
problems that the world is currently experiencing, it would be fatalistic to view these organizations
as not having a role in reversing, stopping or at least decreasing these negative impacts. The fact
that corporations are recognizing their responsibility for the effects that their operations are causing
and the subsequent actions directed towards addressing these harmful effects (Roca & Searcy,
2012) is a better scenario compared to a scenario of corporations continually pursuing profit single
mindedly. Aside from this, it is in the self-interest of corporations to act responsibly due to the
increased governmental regulation on businesses (KPMG, UNEP, GRI, & CCGA, 2016; WBCSD,
2002).
The same logic for corporations acting responsibly can apply to reporting itself. Although
the process of creating and publishing a report may seem counterintuitive for corporations, the
business case has been made for doing so (English & Schooley, 2014; WBCSD, 2002). Beyond

12
the business case, however, the reports offer stakeholders a previously unavailable way to know
more about a corporation’s sustainability strategy and non-financial performance (Morhardt et al.,
2002). This then makes it possible to evaluate these in terms of the corporation’s compliance with
regulations and compare performance with a corporation’s peers within or beyond the
corporation’s industry (Morhardt et al., 2002).
Aside from this, the researcher believes that what the GRI and other sustainability reporting
frameworks offer are better than not having any framework at all. The researcher concedes that
the existing frameworks are lacking as already discussed above. However, this can easily be
countered by indicating that GRI is an evolving framework (Hedberg & Von Malmborg, 2003).
This then connotes the possibility of the framework being better with each version. Given that the
guidelines have seen improvements through many multi-stakeholder consultations (Brown, de
Jong, & Levy, 2009), the suggestions offered by Moneva and colleagues (2006) regarding the
adoption of integrated indicators can be incorporated on future versions.
With regards to the gap of actual behavior to that of what is being reported, the author
believes it is up to the vigilance of all stakeholders. The lack of mandatory measures is beyond the
scope of GRI as an institution and as such would require the complementary governmental actions.
GRI’s strength as a reporting framework is the contextual flexibility it allows companies in
defining sustainability and reporting on sustainability issues relevant to an industry. However, it
seems that this is also its greatest weakness.

2.5 Enter Content Analysis Studies

Because of the voluntary nature of SRs, several studies have focused on surveying existing
SRs through content analysis and comparisons (Davis & Searcy, 2010). These studies generally
aim to identify the trends in the reporting via the adoption of a scoring system. The researches can
be grouped per their scope – international, regional and national level analysis.
Some samples of international level surveys include the KPMG survey of corporate SRs.
KPMG has been issuing the reports every three years (starting 1993) with the most recent in 2015.
Kolk (2003, 2008) has conducted studies on the corporate SR trends of the Fortune Global 250
companies. Another study undertook the scoring of SRs among 40 companies in the Fortune
Global 500 list (Morhardt et al., 2002). A sample of a regional study was done by Moon and
colleagues (2005) when they studied the CSR website reports of seven countries in Asia.

13
 Country-wide surveys can be grouped into those conducted in developed and developing
countries. For the former, some samples include Chapman and Milne’s (2003) comparison of the
reports of 30 companies in New Zealand. A similar study was conducted by Daub (2007) in
Switzerland, Skouloudis and colleagues (2010) in Greece, by Sawani et. al in Malaysia (2010), by
Roca and Searcy in Canada (2012) and Aktas and colleagues in Turkey (2013). The latter includes
surveys conducted in Thailand (Ratanajongkol et al., 2006), in Bangladesh (Sobhani, Amran, &
Zainuddin, 2009) and more recently in India (Yadava & Sinha, 2016).
The studies cited reveal certain trends in corporate sustainability reporting. These include
the wide variety in content, structure and quality of reporting. These trends had been attributed to
the existence of different SR frameworks (Christofi, Christofi, & Sisaye, 2012), the wide number
of reporting instruments (KPMG et al., 2016) as opposed to a single reporting framework that
exists for annual reporting (Davis & Searcy, 2010).

2.6 Research Gap

The trends identified by the cited studies emphasize the need for further studies. For one,
there is no existing study on the Philippine setting. As such this study is a contribution to the body
of literature focused on single country analyses.
Secondly, there is a need to study sustainability reporting developments in countries where
sustainability reporting is not a widespread practice (Skouloudis et al., 2010). This research will
expand the knowledge base on sustainability reporting in Asia. This is important because there is
uneven attention given between developed countries and developing countries in terms of
documenting the trends in sustainability reporting. This is a gap that this study seeks to fulfill.
Aside from the above, many content analysis studies in the literature so far focused on
surveying the contents of these SRs through the employment of scoring systems. These studies in
one form or another allocated scores based on the amount and quality of economic, social and
environmental indicators reported. As such, the studies mentioned had not looked at the inter
relationships of these three aspects. With some exceptions (Davidson & Wilson, 2006; Sridhar &
Jones, 2013) many content analysis studies inadvertently contribute to the silo mentality mentioned
by Sridhar and Jones (2013) by just merely scoring the quality of the content and not considering
how discussions about these three aspects are linked. Currently, there is a dearth of materials

14
focused on determining whether SRs incorporate an integrated approach to sustainability. This is
the gap that this research study aims to fulfill.

15
 Chapter 3
Research Framework, Design, and Methodology

3.1 Theoretical Frameworks

The researcher will be using two theoretical frameworks in interpreting and explaining the
results of this research. Legitimization theory will be useful given the various motivations of
companies in reporting its sustainability initiatives. Legitimization theory may also help explain
the variations in content and quality of reporting. Thus, this theory helps in answering the first two
research questions while the third question can be framed from a systems theory perspective.
3.1.1 Legitimization Theory
Before moving to the theory, it important to define what we mean by legitimacy. Suchman
offers this definition.
Legitimacy is a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity
are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some social constructed system of
norms, values, beliefs, and definitions (1995, p. 574).

The definition begs the question legitimacy for what? In the case of corporations,
legitimacy theory forwards the assumption that corporations exist because society allowed it to do
so (Ratanajongkol et al., 2006). Guthrie and Parker (1989) forwards the idea of a social contract
wherein society allows corporations to exist in exchange for the corporations’ provision of goods
and services for the betterment of society. It is because of this that Ratanajongkol and colleagues
(2006) further stated that corporations would have to meet the expectations of the broader society
if it wants to continue its operations.
As a logical extension and as it applies to sustainability reporting, the theory suggests that
creating and publishing the document is one of the many ways in which a corporation may seek to
gain or maintain the legitimacy for its existence (Ratanajongkol et al., 2006; Vormedal & Ruud,
2009).
3.1.2 Systems Theory
Systems theory is a transdisciplinary framework that forwards the idea that a system is
made up of interrelated parts and that the whole system is greater than the sum of its parts (Johnson,
Kast, & Rosenzweig, 1964). Johnson and colleagues (1964), forwards the idea that while the parts

16
of a system can be analyzed individually, the whole system cannot be understood completely
without looking at the interrelationships among the individual parts. Doppelt, as mentioned by
Sridhar and Jones (2013), appreciates the value in thinking through systems as it enables us to
move beyond mere cause and effect relationships and enables us to appreciate the complex realities
that we are faced with. As such, systems thinking “helps in building more accurate mental models
for understanding complex phenomena” (Sridhar & Jones, 2013, p. 98).
Capra (1996) applied systems theory in forwarding the importance of thinking holistically
when it comes to sustainability. Particularly, he advocated the appreciation of the interrelationship
between our social systems and the Earth’s natural systems (Capra, 1996). As such the
sustainability of the world is dependent upon healthy subsystems operating within the overall
world system. If any of the subsystems were to function sub optimally then the entire world system
will be affected in turn (Sridhar & Jones, 2013).
As such, the corporation can then be viewed as a subsystem of the economic systems that
is turn one of the social systems. All social systems closely interacts with the Earth’s natural
systems (Johnson et al., 1964). This is why the triple bottom line or corporate sustainability is an
inherently systems concept in that the interrelationships of the three dimensions is the very reason
it makes sense.

3.2 Operational Framework

3.2.1 The Global Reporting Initiative’s Sustainability Reporting Framework
Sustainability reports using the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Guidelines can include
topics that are grouped into four major categories – vision and strategy, profile, governance
structure, and performance indicators.
The performance indicators are further broken down to three dimensions – economic,
social and environmental. The social dimension is further broken down into four sub dimensions
– labor practice and decent work, human rights, society and product responsibility. The economic,
social and environmental dimensions mentioned have aspects with its corresponding indicators.
Table 1 shows examples of indicator examples.

17
Table 1. GRI G4 Reporting Guidelines: Specific Standard Disclosures
Category Aspect Indicator Example
Economic Economic performance Direct value generated
Market presence Entry-level wage by gender compared to local
minimum wage
Indirect economic impacts Impact of infrastructure investments
Procurement practices Spending on local suppliers
Environmental Materials Materials used
Energy Energy consumed
Water Water withdrawal by source
Biodiversity Operational sites adjacent to protected areas
Emissions Direct greenhouse gas emissions
Effluents and waste Quality and destination of water discharge
Products and services Mitigation of environmental impacts of products and
services
Compliance Fines and nonmonetary sanctions for noncompliance
Transport Environmental impacts of transporting products and
workforce
Environmental protection expenditures and
Overall investments
Supplier environmental assessment Suppliers screened using environmental criteria
Environmental grievance mechanisms Environmental impacts grievances
Social: Labor Employment Hires and turnover by age
Practices and Labor/management relations Operational change notices
Decent Work Occupational health and safety Workforce participation on health and safety
committees
Training and education Annual training by gender and employee category
Diversity and equal opportunity Employees by gender, age, and minority group
Equal remuneration for women and
men Remuneration by gender
Supplier assessment for labor practices Suppliers screened for labor practices
Labor practices grievance and Labor practices grievances
mechanisms
Social: Human Investment Investment agreements that include human rights
Rights clauses
Nondiscrimination Incidents of discrimination

18
 Freedom of association and collective Operations and suppliers at risk for violating right to
bargaining exercise freedom of association
Child labor Risk for incidents of child labor
Forced or compulsory labor Risk for incidents of forced or compulsory labor
Security practices Personnel trained in human rights policies
Indigenous rights Violations of rights of indigenous peoples
Assessment Operations subject to human rights reviews
Supplier human rights assessment Suppliers screened using human rights criteria
Human right grievance mechanisms Human rights grievances filed
Social: Society Local communities Community engagement, impact assessments, and
development programs
Anticorruption Operations assessed for risks of corruption
Public policy Value of political contributions
Anticompetitive behavior Legal actions for anticompetitive, antitrust, and
monopoly practices
Sanctions for noncompliance with laws and
Compliance regulations
Supplier assessment for impacts on Suppliers screened using criteria for impacts on
society society
Grievance mechanisms for impacts on Grievances about impacts on society
society
Social: Product Customer health and safety Assessment of health and safety impacts
Responsibility Product and service information labeling
Product and service labeling requirements
Marketing communications Sale of banned or disputed products
Customer privacy Breaches of customer privacy and losses of customer
data
Compliance Noncompliance in the provision and use of products
and services

Note: From “The evolution of sustainability reporting: Using the GRI’s latest guidelines and looking to integrated
reporting” by D. English and D. Schooley, 2014, The CPA Journal, p. 26–36

3.2.2 Systems Thinking

To clarify how systems thinking might be reflected in the select SRs, the study did a
qualitative content analysis to determine the presence of systems thinking. To this end, the study

19
looked for any form of discussion that links the company’s efforts in any one of the three
sustainability dimensions with the other one or two dimensions.
Aside from this, the researcher also paid attention to discussions relating to management
systems. For example, an environmental management system (EMS) enables a corporation to
make sure that negative environmental impacts are reduced (Darnall, Jolley, & Handfield, 2008).
Shireman as cited by Darnall and colleagues (2008) said that this is done in such a way that the
practices become embedded in a corporation’s operation so that protecting the environment
becomes an integral part of business strategy. It is for this reason that Curcovic and colleagues (as
cited by Darnall et. al., 2008, p.31) claims that EMS are “recognized as systematic and
comprehensive mechanisms for improving environmental and business performance.”

3.3 Data Collection Procedure, Processing and Analysis

This study employed a multiple case design with the SRs as the unit of analyses. Herriott
& Firestone as cited by Yin (2014) said that evidence from multiple cases are more compelling
and makes the results of a study more robust. Replication logic was used as it is predicted that the
SRs of the two water companies in the Philippines (Manila Water Company Inc and Maynilad
Water Services Inc.) do not demonstrate systems thinking. The 2013-2014 SRs analyzed were
downloaded from the companies’ websites. The recent SRs of the two companies were not used
because MWCI has issued a combined annual report and sustainability report for 2015 while
MWSI has issued a standalone SR. As such, the two recent reports might not be comparable.

The researcher did a content analysis of the two SRs. Content analysis is a research method
used to discover the presence or the absence of information about a particular topic (Krippendorff,
1989). This method of analysis has been used in past researches that also analyzed sustainability
reports (Aktas et al., 2013; Asif et al., 2012; Kolk, 2003; Roca & Searcy, 2012; Yadava & Sinha,
2016).

Like Yadava and Sinha (2016), the analyses of SRs were limited to the performance
indicators because these are the important dimensions in the generation of sustainability insights.
The numerical scoring system used by Yadava and Sinha was adapted with some modifications as
the researcher would use the latest GRI version. Each of the 91 performance indicators (9 for
economic, 34 for the environment and 48 for social dimensions) of the GRI 2013 Guidelines were

20
assigned a score between 0 and 3 with 273 as the maximum possible score. Table 2 shows the
maximum possible score for each category and the scoring breakdown.
Table 2. Proposed Scoring System based on GRI G4 Performance Indicators

Social: Labor Social:

Social: Social:
Dimensions Economic Environmental Practice and Product
Human Right Society
Decent Work Responsibility
Number of
Aspects 4 12 8 10 7 5
Number of
Indicators 9 34 16 12 11 9
Maximum Score 27 102 48 36 33 27

Note: Adapted from “Scoring sustainability reports using GRI 2011 guidelines for assessing environmental, economic
and social dimensions of leading public and private Indian companies” by R. Yadava and B. Sinha, 2016, Journal of
Business Ethics, p. 549-558.

A report was given a 0 score if there was no mention of the indicator. A brief or generic
statement gained the report a score of 1 (i.e. The company does not have a mechanism for dealing
with grievances regarding human rights). An extensive discussion of an indicator not covering
more than one year of data received a score of 2. A report that discusses an aspect systematically
with comparison of performance across years scored the maximum (Yadava & Sinha, 2016).
Scoring sheets were created and utilized in assessing the SRs.
The scores were then tabulated and provided the basis for answering the first two research
questions stated in the beginning of this research proposal. The third research question was
answered via the employment of coding. The contents of the SRs were analyzed and the searched
for any evidence pertaining to the employment of systems thinking as discussed in the operational
framework.

21
 Chapter 4
Research Context

4.1 Introduction
This section of the paper will focus on the context within which the two water companies
operate. The discussion starts with a discussion about the regulatory office, Metropolitan
Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS), that oversees the operation of the two companies.
This discussion was deemed essential because the relationship of MWSS and the two water
companies may provide insights related to the motivations of the company for issuing SRs. The
next sections of this chapter focused on the company profiles.

4.2 Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System

The Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) is a Philippine government-
owned and controlled corporation that makes sure that cities in Metro Manila and adjacent areas
have continuous supply of water. MWSS is also mandated to provide sewerage and sanitation
services in its areas of operation. As such, MWSS owns the waterworks and sewerage systems in
its areas of operations (Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System, 2014).
Because of MWSS’s past mediocre performance, the government encouraged private
industry participation in the water and sewerage system operation. In 1997, the MWSS entered
separate concession agreements with two private companies – Manila Water Company
Incorporated (MWCI) and Maynilad Water Services Incorporated (MWSI). Under the agreement
MWCI would oversee operations in the East zone and MWSI in the West zone for an initial period
of 25 years which has since been extended for another 15 years (MWSS, 2014). The agreements
granted these two companies “the rights to manage, operate, repair, decommission and refurbish
the facilities” (MWSS, 2014, p. 77) of MWSS in their respective areas of operations. As a reward
for doing so, the two companies obtained the rights to bill and collect fees from the customers in
their areas. Logically, the concessionaires are required to pay MWSS concession fees considering
the rights they have obtained from the agreements.
To make sure that the concessionaires comply with their service obligations stated in the
agreements, the MWSS created the MWSS Regulatory Office (MWSS-RO). The MWSS-RO

22
regulates all aspects of the business operations of the two concessionaires. To do so, the RO
oversees
reviewing, monitoring and enforcing water rates and service standards, performing
regular independent audits on the performance of the concessionaires, monitoring
the condition of infrastructure assets, and handling customer complaints (MWSS-
RO, p. 60)

While it may seem that MWCI and MWSI operates as two monopolies, the government
exercises oversight functions to ensure that the public interest is continually protected and
promoted while the two companies reap the economic benefits of operating the water systems in
their respective areas.

4.3 Company Profiles

4.3.1 Manila Water Company, Inc.
Manila Water Company, Inc. (MWCI) is a company that provides water and used water
services in multiple areas in the Philippines. Not only does it serves what is called the East Zone
of Metro Manila, which includes much of the Makati business district and expanding suburbs in
the east, the company also operates in Boracay, Clark Freeport Zone, Laguna and Cebu. Aside
from this, MWCI also has presence in Vietnam and Myanmar (Manila Water Company, 2014).
The company was incorporated on January 6, 1997, and started commercially operating
on January 1, 2000. The company became a publicly listed company through an initial public
offering on March 18, 2005 (Manila Water Company, n.d.). Per its 2013-2014 Sustainability
Report, 50.1% of the shares are owned by the public, 48.7% by the Ayala Corporation, the holding
company of one of the oldest and largest business groups in the Philippines, and 1.2% by
Mitsubishi Corporation, one of Japan’s largest trading companies.
Manila Water Company, Inc. is considered the country’s pioneer in corporate sustainability
reporting (Global Reporting Initiative, n.d.). The company started issuing corporate SRs in 2004.
It issued sustainability reports annually until 2012, but issued a consolidated version for 2013 and
2014 (Table 3).

23
Table 3. Sustainability Reporting Frameworks of Manila Water Company, Inc., 2004-2015

Year Sustainability Reporting Framework Used

2004 None mentioned
2005 None mentioned
2006 None mentioned
2007 GRI G3
2008 GRI G3
2009 GRI G3
2010 GRI G3
2011 GRI G3.1 and ISO 26000
2012 GRI G3.1 and ISO 26000
2013-2014 GRI G4 and ISO 26000
2015* GRI G4 and ISO 26000
*The company issued a combined Annual and Sustainability Report in 2015.
Sources: Manila Water Company, Inc. Sustainability Reports for 2004 to 2015.

4.3.2 Maynilad Water Services, Inc.

Manila Water Company, Inc.’s counterpart in the west is the Maynilad Water Services,
Inc. (MWSI). Unlike MWCI however, MWSS does not have any subsidiaries and exists primarily
to serve the service areas in its territory. The company is the water and wastewater service provider
of 17 cities and municipalities in the Western portion of Metro Manila (Maynilad Water Services
Inc, n.d.-a).
MWSI’s history is marred with difficulty as it underwent two privatization processes.
When the company was formed in 1997, Benpres Holdings Corporation and Suez Lyonnaise de
Eaux were the first owners of this company. However, these owners were not able to meet their
service obligations under the concession agreement due to the combined effect of the Asian
financial crisis and El Nino. As a result, the owners ceded the ownership of MWSI back to MWSS.
It was only in 2005 that the DMCI-MPIC Water Company Inc., a joint venture between Metro
Pacific Investment Corporations and DMCI Holdings, Inc., took over the operations of the
company. In 2013, the Japanese Marubeni Corporation acquired 20% of the ownership of the

24
company (Maynilad Water Services Inc, n.d.-b). The change in ownership may partly account why
MWSI only started issuing SRs in 2011.
Table 4. Sustainability Reporting Frameworks of Maynilad Water Services, Inc., 2011-2015

Year Sustainability Reporting Framework Used

2011 GRI 3.1
2012 GRI 3.1
2013-2014 GRI 4
2015 Information currently not available
Sources: Maynilad Water Services, Inc. Sustainability Reports for 2011 to 2015.

25
 Chapter 5
Cross Case Analysis

5.1 Overview

This chapter presents the research results bearing in mind the research problems stated in
the earlier part of the paper. The next sections discuss in detail the sustainability dimensions
addressed in the sustainability reports and the under-developed areas. It will also discuss the
presence or absence of any evidence relating to systems thinking in the SRs.

5.2 Sustainability Dimensions Addressed

The result of the analysis of the two SRs revealed that both reports addressed the three
dimensions with varying intensities (Table 5). Overall, MWCI scored higher than MWSI in the
scoring for individual dimensions as well as the total score. This means that MWCI has a higher
quality of reporting in terms of quality of coverage and the number of aspects compared to MWSI
reporting.
Table 5. Scores of the reports based on GRI G4 performance indicators
Dimensions Highest Possible Scores MWCI Scores MWSI Scores
Economic 27 16 (59) 8 (30)
Environmental 102 48 (47) 45 (44)
Social 144 34 (24) 31 (22)
Total Score 273 98 (36) 84 (31)
Value in parenthesis represents percentage of highest possible score

Despite this, the percentages (calculated by dividing the scores of the SRs by the highest
possible scores) reveal that the difference in the total quality of reporting is only 5%. The
difference in scores for both environmental and social dimensions was only a maximum of 3%.
The biggest difference in the quality in reporting can be found in the reporting of the economic
aspects with MWCI scoring 59% compared to MWSI’s 30%.

26
 Looking at the individual companies, MWCI scored highest in the economic dimension
(59%) and lowest in the social dimension (24%). Meanwhile, MWSI scored highest in the
environmental dimension (44%) and lowest in the social dimension (22%) like MWCI.
Overall, both SRs’ quality of discussions of the dimensions addressed did not even reach
half of the highest possible scores for both SRs. This implies that while the reports address the
dimensions, there is still a need to improve the quality of discussions.

5.3 Under-developed Sustainability Dimensions

Looking at the individual sustainability dimensions, the coverage results revealed

variations (Table 6). MWCI’s report focused less on the social dimension, followed by the
environmental dimension with the economic dimension receiving the highest coverage.
Meanwhile, MWSI’s report focused the least on the economic dimension. Aside from this curious
trend, the report is similar to MWCI’s in that the social dimension is followed by the environmental
dimension. The least coverage given by MWSI report to the economic dimension can be explained
by the financial difficulties that MWSI has gone through. As such the company may not be ready
to highlight this dimension yet.

Table 6. Number of indicators not reported by the sustainability reports

Dimension Total number of Number of indicators not reported

indicators MWCI MWSI
Economic 9 2 (22) 6 (67)
Environmental 34 17 (50) 16 (47)
Social 48 25 (52) 30 (63)
Total 91 44 (48) 52 (57)
Value in parenthesis represents percentage of total number of indicators

27
 5.3.1 Economic Dimension Reporting
The two companies reported on three out of four of the economic aspects (Table 7). There
was an absence in the discussion of market presence in both reports and as such it got the lowest
score. The absence of this aspect highlight the need for the inclusion of the two companies’
information about its compensation practices vis a vis the minimum wage as well as procedures
for hiring. The reports would also have to discuss the number of senior managers that are hired
from the local community. The MWCI report was able to discuss its indirect economic impacts
fully but MWSI was only able to discuss this partially even failing to discuss the development and
impact of the company’s infrastructure investments and services. Both reports contained quality
discussions regarding their procurement practices.
Table 7. Scores on economic aspects

Aspect Highest possible score MWCI MWSI

Economic performance 12 7 (58) 3 (25)
Market Presence 6 0 (0) 0 (0)
Indirect economic impacts 6 6 (100) 2 (33)
Procurement practices 3 3 (100) 3 (100)
Total 27 16 (59) 8 (30)
Value in parenthesis represents percentage of highest possible score

5.3.2 Environmental Dimension Reporting

The total score garnered for the environmental aspects by the two reports only differ by
3% (Table 8). MWCI discussed effluents and waste (80%) most extensively while MWSI covered
both aspect of water and overall expenditure on environmental protection (67%) most extensively.
However, both companies failed to discuss the significant environmental impacts of transporting
employees.
MWCI’s report lack any mention of the products and services, compliance, transport and
overall environmental expenditures aspects. MWSI only lacked mention in the aspects of transport
and environmental grievance mechanisms.

28
Table 8. Scores on environmental aspects

Aspect Highest possible score MWCI MWSI

Materials 6 3 (50) 3 (50)
Energy 15 9 (60) 6 (40)
Water 9 3 (33) 6 (67)
Biodiversity 12 3 (25) 7 (58)
Emissions 21 15 (71) 9 (43)
Effluents and waste 15 12 (80) 8 (53)
Products and services 6 0 (0) 2 (33)
Compliance 3 0 (0) 1 (33)
Transport 3 0 (0) 0 (0)
Overall 3 0 (0) 2 (67)
Supplier environmental assessment 6 2 (33) 1 (17)
Environmental grievance mechanisms 3 1 (33) 0 (0)
Total 102 48 (47) 45 (44)
Value in parenthesis represents percentage of highest possible score

Interestingly, the discussion in the water aspect varies between the two companies. Given
that both companies are water and used water service providers, it will be natural to expect that
the discussion in this aspect would be most extensive. However, the results of the scoring clearly
show otherwise. The water aspect includes total water withdrawal by source, the location of the
water sourced and water recycled and reused. MWCI’s report contained a comprehensive
discussion on the total water withdrawal by source but lacked any discussion on the other topics.
Compared to the MWSI report, the MWCI report scored lower on this indicator. MWSI’s report
comprehensively discussed all the topics related to water except for water recycled and reused.

29
 5.3.3 Social Dimension Reporting
The social dimension includes four subcategories – labor practices and decent work, human
rights, society and product responsibility. Overall, both reports scored the lowest in reporting the
social compared to economic and environmental dimensions (Table 5). It is noticeable that there
is no great variation between the total scores of the two reports.
5.3.3.1 Labor Practices and Decent Work Reporting
Among all the topics discussed, it is only in the discussion of labor practices and decent
work that MWSI’s report got a better score compared to MWCI’s (Table 9). The two reports scored
the same in its discussion of employment and labor practices grievance and mechanisms and both
reports lacked discussion on labor/management relations. MWSI’s report got the higher score in
occupational health and safety and training and education.
Table 9. Scores on labor practices and decent work under the social dimension
Aspect Highest possible score MWCI MWSI
Employment 9 5 (56) 5 (56)
Labor/management relations 3 0 (0) 0 (0)
Occupational health and safety 12 2 (17) 4 (33)
Training and education 9 4 (44) 6 (67)
Labor practices grievance and mechanisms 3 1 (33) 1 (33)
Total 36 12 (33) 16 (44)
Value in parenthesis represents percentage of highest possible score

5.3.3.2 Human Rights Reporting

Both reports have much to improve in their discussions about human rights (Table 10).
There was scant coverage in the two reports about investment agreements that include human
rights clauses or agreements that underwent human rights screening. This is also true for the aspect
of operations that have been subjected to human rights reviews or impact assessments. However,
it is noticeable that MWSI’s report lacked discussion on more number of aspects under human
rights compared to MWCI.

30
Table 10. Scores on human rights under the social dimension

Aspect Highest possible score MWCI MWSI

Investment 6 0 (0) 0 (0)
Nondiscrimination 3 1 (33) 1 (33)
Freedom of association and
collective bargaining 3 0 (0) 1 (33)
Child labor 3 1 (33) 0 (0)
Forced or compulsory labor 3 1 (33) 0 (0)
Security practices 3 1 (33) 2 (67)
Indigenous rights 3 1 (33) 0 (0)
Assessment 3 0 (0) 0 (0)
Supplier human rights assessment 6 1 (17) 0 (0)
Human right grievance mechanisms 3 0 (0) 1 (33)
Total 36 6 (17) 5 (14)
Value in parenthesis represents percentage of highest possible score

5.3.3.3 Society Reporting

The trend of low quality discussion continued in the reports’ discussions of local
communities (Table 11). MWCI addressed all aspects while MWSI was only able to address one
aspect. This is interesting considering that the websites of the two companies show very strong
community engagement initiatives.

31
Table 11. Scores on society under the social dimension

Aspect Highest possible score MWCI MWSI

Local communities 6 2 (33) 3 (50)
Anticorruption 9 1 (11) 0 (0)
Public policy 3 1 (33) 0 (0)
Anticompetitive behavior 3 1 (33) 0 (0)
Compliance 3 1 (33) 0 (0)
Supplier assessment for impacts on society 6 1 (17) 0 (0)
Grievance mechanisms for impacts on
society 3 1 (33) 0 (0)
Total 33 8 (24) 3 (9)
Value in parenthesis represents percentage of highest possible score

5.3.3.4 Product Responsibility Reporting

Among the four sub-categories under social dimension, product responsibility reporting
received the least attention in the two reports. Both reports addressed customer health and safety
with MWCI’s report gaining a higher score compared to MWSI. However, MWCI’s report only
addressed that one aspect while MWSI’s report also addressed the compliance aspect albeit
superficially.

Table 12. Scores on product responsibility under the social dimension

Aspect Highest possible score MWCI MWSI

Customer health and safety 6 3 (50) 1 (17)
Product and service labeling 9 0 (0) 0 (0)
Marketing communications 6 0 (0) 0 (0)
Customer privacy 3 0 (0) 0 (0)
Compliance 3 0 (0) 1 (33)
Total 27 3 (11) 2 (7)
Value in parenthesis represents percentage of highest possible score

32
5.4 Evidence/Non-evidence of Systems Thinking

The results revealed that the SRs revealed systems thinking through the reports’
discussions of two or more sustainability dimensions together and management systems employed
by the companies. MWCI’s report revealed a more in depth understanding of systems thinking
compared to MWSI. MWCI’s discussions regarding interdependencies were always exhaustive
usually comprising multiple sentences if not paragraphs. However, MWSI’s coverage are usually
limited to a single sentence or a paragraph.

5.4.1 Manila Water Company, Inc.

Systems thinking was reflected in MWCI’s report due to the in-depth discussion of the
company’s sustainability policy and its accompanying sustainability framework. The framework
guided and informed the topical discussions in the report. MWCI’s appreciation of the
interdependencies of the three sustainability dimensions in its sustainability policy is clearly
reflected in the following passage.

Manila Water puts a very high premium on sustainable development and inclusive
growth and, as much as practicable, integrates these principles into its business
processes. Manila Water believes that the sustainability of its business is dependent
on the communities that it serves, the environment that provides its resources, as
well as other stakeholders who support its programs and provide valuable insights
and feedback to improve the Company’s sustainability thrusts. With this in mind,
the Company will be able to address the needs of the communities, the environment
and the economy, thereby creating and maximizing shared value (Manila Water
Company, 2014, p. 28).

This discussion is then followed by how the company translates its policy to its business
operations. The ten commitments explained immediately after this policy is intended to inform the
reader how MWCI puts into practice their sustainability policy. It is interesting to note that how
this study operationalizes systems thinking was verbalized in two of these commitments. The
economic dimension and social dimension was linked in this commitment:

Drive economic growth and development by constructing and managing best in

class water and wastewater infrastructure, and helping small and medium

33
 enterprises strengthen and expand their businesses (Manila Water Company, 2014,
p. 28)

While the employment of management system was explicitly stated in its third commitment to
“design and develop an environmental management system that would ensure continuing
environmental compliance and sustainability of our operations” (Manila Water Company, 2014,
p. 28).

Because the policy and commitment discussion gave insights to how the company views
itself, there was still a need to look at what the company has done according to its report. The
evidences of systems thinking were usually found in the management approach part that serves as
the introductions for the chapters in the report.

For example, in the introduction to the chapter relating to environment, the report
mentioned that

The sustainability of Manila Water’s business is greatly dependent on what the

environment naturally provides, and thus it values bodies of water as resources that
everyone need to take care of; without raw water, the heart of the Company’s
services are at risk (Manila Water Company, 2014, p. 59).

This statement clearly reflects the link between the company’s business model and the
health of the environment. As such, MWCI clearly understands that protecting the environment is
congruent with its economic interests. The same message was also repeated in the closing part of
the chapter where the company’s future plans relating to the environment were discussed - “Manila
Water’s core business is highly dependent on the environment” (Manila Water Company, 2014, p.
92).

The environmental dimension was also linked with the social dimension in various
instances. Samples included the discussions related to MWCI’s efforts in helping build
communities. This discussion related to how MWCI’s services create “an enabling environment
where development can thrive without unduly sacrificing the quality of the environment and the
health of the population” (p. 51). To complete the picture, the report also discussed the importance
of making sure the proper treatment of used water before its return to the environment. This is to

34
assure that the ecosystem remains healthy and in turn, the communities that rely on the marine life
would have a continued source of livelihood.

In terms of discussion about management systems, MWCI’s report mentioned the

employment of operations management systems including the sub-systems for energy, business
continuity, environmental management systems, quality management as well as occupational
health and safety management systems (Manila Water Company, 2014).

5.4.2 Manila Water Services, Inc.

Systems thinking was also reflected in MWSI’s report however the discussion was
relatively weaker compared to MWCI. MWSI also discussed the framework they employ which
they call the Quality, Environmental, Safety and Health (QESH) Management Framework. Like
MWSI’s Sustainability Framework, the MWSI’s QESH framework guided and informed the
topical discussions in the report. The QESH Framework was not thoroughly discussed in the report
however there were several images related to it.

In terms of discussions relating two dimensions, there were many evidences of these. The
economic and social dimensions were connected in the reports in its discussions about the
company, its efforts to strengthen its business and enhance its operations. For example, the report
specified that MWSI exists “to provide safe and sustainable water solutions that mean profit for
our shareholders and access to life-giving water for previously unserved communities” (Maynilad
Water Services Inc, 2014, p. 20). Aside from this, the report has also made mentioned that in its
pursuit of profit, it has done so by economically benefitting its stakeholders. The benefits of its
reduction of non-revenue water has also been discussed in light of the interconnection of the social
benefit in terms of more water reaching its customers and the economic benefit for the company
in terms of an increase in its revenue (Maynilad Water Services Inc, 2014).

The economic dimension has been linked to the environmental dimension in the report’s
discussion on environmental protection. The report made mention of the importance of watershed
protection as it is the source of water and as such the very reason why the company exists in the
first place. Meanwhile, in the report’s discussion on energy efficiency, it has explained that “for
every peso that we generate, we emit less CO2 than in the past years” (Maynilad Water Services
Inc, 2014, p. 90).

35
 Finally, the environmental dimension was related to the social dimension of sustainability
in the report’s coverage on the company’s operation improvement and in its protection of the
environment. For the former, the report made mention of how the project developments of the
companies are assessed for environmental and social impacts. Such linking was also evident in the
report’s discussion on the importance of safeguarding the quality of wastewater discharges. It
indicated that doing so contributes to the prevention of pollution in waterways and as such assures
the health of customers through proper sanitation. Discussion regarding the latter, related to the
results of a workshop for one of the company’s watershed protection project. To wit:

Each area of concern (1) overlaps to improve the socioeconomic well-being of the
host communities within the Ipo Watershed area and (2) is designed to fortify the
current envi-eco structures for a more sustained water supply (Maynilad Water
Services Inc, 2014, p. 94).

Similar to MWCI’s report, MWSI’s report also made mention of the company’s
employment of the management systems relating to energy, business continuity, environmental
management systems, quality management as well as occupational health and safety management
systems.

36
 Chapter 6
Conclusion and Recommendations

6.1 Conclusion
In summary, this research study was able to achieve the three objectives stated in the earlier
part of this paper. The first objective pertains to the identification of sustainability dimensions
addressed in the reports while the second objective related to the identification of under-developed
areas in the reports. The two reports analyzed addressed all three sustainability dimensions with
varying intensities. MWCI’s discussion relating to the economic dimension was the most
comprehensive, followed by the environmental with the least coverage given to the social
dimension. Meanwhile, MWSI’s report covered the environmental dimension most followed by
the economic and the social dimension.

The prioritization in the coverage can be analyzed from a legitimization standpoint. For
MWCI, the amount of coverage dedicated to the economic dimension signals their prioritization
of shareholders as their primary stakeholder. Asif and colleagues (2012) highlight the legitimation
function of communicating through corporate sustainability reporting in that doing so assures a
corporation a steady supply of resources including finances from investors and shareholders. Thus,
the report’s prioritization of the economic dimension becomes logical given MWCI’s status as a
publicly traded company and the company’s expansion plans. In this light, the MWCI SR can now
be viewed as a very important channel of communication instrumental for the solicitation of
additional capital from both existing and potential shareholders. It is interesting to note that this is
in direct contradiction to the report’s declaration that their employees are their primary stakeholder
(Manila Water Company, 2014).

For MWSI, the priority given to the environmental dimension might be incidental. If
MWSI has its financial matters in order, the prioritization in the coverage of dimensions might
have been the same as that of MWCI’s. Although the company is not currently a publicly listed
company like MWSI, it has similar expansion plans that will necessitate the infusion of capital
from financial institutions. Thus the MWSI’s report serves the same function as that of MWCI’s.

Assuming that the prioritization is intentional, the alternative explanation might be that the
continuance of the concession agreement is the priority of the company. As such, regulators are

37
the primary target audience of the MWSI report and the report is instrumental in its demonstration
of the company’s fulfillment of its service obligations.

The dismal results in the quality of coverage of the social dimension has been similarly
observed by Yadava and Sinha (2016) in their study of public and private oil and gas Indian
company SRs. This could either mean that the companies examined did not have good social
performance or that the companies need to develop their social dimension reporting skills (Yadava
& Sinha, 2016).

Despite the variation in the most and least covered sustainability dimensions, the results
show that the two reports are comparable in terms of scores garnered with MWCI gaining a higher
score compared to MWSI. This came as a surprise as MWCI’s 11 years of reporting experience
compared to MWSI’s 3 years would lead one to assume that there would be a bigger difference in
the scores. This lower difference in the reports’ total scores may be attributed to the fact that
MWCI’s report covers four companies – Manila Water, Boracay Water, Clark Water and Laguna
Water. The inclusion of data from the three MWCI subsidiaries may have resulted to compromises
in terms of completeness and quality in the discussion of the three sustainability dimensions.

The last objective of this research pertains to the reflection of systems thinking in the
discussion of the reports. Both reports were able to do so in their respective narratives. As such,
this leads to the invalidation of the proposition forwarded in the earlier part of the paper. As
opposed to what Sridhar and Jones (2013) hypothesized, the selected reports did reflect systems
thinking. Comparing the quality of discussion of the two companies, however, MWCI’s report had
a higher quality of discussion compared to MWSI. As such, MWCI’s report is better in terms of
the completeness and quality of reporting and in the way it reflected systems thinking.

The overall superiority of the MWCI report can be attributed to the difference in the context
within which the two companies operate. MWCI belongs to a conglomerate group and as such it
has access to more resources that can be tapped for the improvement not only of its operations but
also for the development of its report. This may also explain why MWCI was able to avoid the
financial troubles of its western zone counterpart and was able to manage its operations well. This
enabled MWCI to focus on the creation and development of its SR throughout the years that it
became the pioneer in sustainability reporting and resulted to a seven-year advantage in the
development and enhancement of the quality of its SRs. In contrast, MWSI’s re-privatization

38
experience has resulted to MWSI prioritizing its financials first before giving attention to corporate
sustainability reporting.

6.2 Recommendation

Considering the results of the content analysis, the study recommends the following to the
two service providers, policy makers and future researchers.

Given the scores garnered by the two SRs, MWCI and MWSI are enjoined to improve the
completeness and comprehensiveness of the reports in light of the GRI G4 aspects particularly
those in the social dimensions. One way of doing this would be through the provision of statements
about the exclusion of certain aspects and a discussion on why it was excluded. The companies
are also called to improve the quality of discussion in their reports by “strengthening their reporting
skills and activities related to the different components of sustainability” (Yadava & Sinha, 2016,
p. 557). MWCI and MWSI are also encouraged to integrate the discussion of the three
sustainability dimensions in their reports. This way, the reports would be able to truly reflect
systems thinking and be able to demonstrate the companies’ efforts towards true corporate
sustainability.

The government plays a pivotal role in the achievement of sustainable development. As

such, the results of this study can provide policy makers with a basis for legislation making
sustainability reporting mandatory similar to how annual reporting is. The score results can serve
as the benchmark regarding the minimum content of future sustainability disclosures. This future
law can also mandate the integration in the discussions of the three sustainability dimensions by
providing guidance to current and future corporate sustainability reporters. As such, this will aid
Philippine companies to make sure that their reports/future reports not only surpass the minimum
score on each dimension but also be able to reflect the true spirit of corporate sustainability.

In anticipation of this future law, future researchers are encouraged to go beyond content
analysis and incorporate data from primary sources to assure that the legislation developed is
relevant to current reporting practices. Yadava and Sinha’s (2016) discusses the importance of
soliciting suggestions on “how to meet the minimum score on each dimension for different sectors”
(p. 557) to aid companies in complying with this future law.

39
References:

Aktas, R., Kayalidere, K., & Kargin, M. (2013). Corporate sustainability reporting and analysis
of sustainability reports in Turkey. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 5(3),
113–126. http://doi.org/10.5539/ijef.v5n3p113

Asif, M., Searcy, C., & Kensah, D. (2012). A review of Dutch corporate sustainable
development reports. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
339, 321–339. http://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1284

Brown, H. S., de Jong, M., & Lessidrenska, T. (2009). The rise of the Global Reporting
Initiative: A case of institutional entrepreneurship. Environmental Politics, 18(2), 182–200.
http://doi.org/10.1080/09644010802682551

Capra, F. (1996). The web of life: a new scientific understanding of living systems. New York:
Anchor Books.

Chapman, R., & Milne, M. J. (2003). The triple bottom line: How New Zealand companies
measure up. International Journal for Sustainable Business, 11(2), 2–37.

Chapple & Moon, J., W. (2005). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Asia: a seven country
study of CSR website reporting. Business & Society, 44(4), 415–441.
http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0007650305281658

Christofi, A., Christofi, P., & Sisaye, S. (2012). Corporate sustainability: Historical development
and reporting practices. Management Research Review, 35(2), 157–172.
http://doi.org/10.1108/01409171211195170

Daizy, Sen, M., & Das, N. (2013). Corporate sustainability reporting: A review of initiatives and
trends. IUP Journal of Accounting Research & Audit Practices, 12(2), 7.

Darnall, N., Jolley, G. J., & Handfield, R. (2008). Environmental management systems and green
supply chain management: Complements for sustainability? Business Strategy and the
Environment, 18(October 2006), 30–45. http://doi.org/10.1002/bse.557

Daub, C. H. (2007). Assessing the quality of sustainability reporting: An alternative

methodological approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(1), 75–85.

40
 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.08.013

Davidson, K., & Wilson, L. (2006). Measuring social, economic and environmental
sustainability at the enterprise level: A case study of an Australian utility corporation’s
sustainability report. In Social Change in the 21st Century Conference (p. 13). Retrieved
from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/6089/1/6089.pdf

Davis, G., & Searcy, C. (2010). A review of Canadian corporate sustainable development
reports. Journal of Global Responsibility, 1(2), 316–329.
http://doi.org/10.1108/20412561011079425

Eccles, R. G., Serafeim, G., & Ionannou, I. (2012). The Impact of a Corporate Culture of
Sustainability on Corporate Behavior and Performance (No. 12–035). Retrieved from
http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication Files/SSRN-id1964011_6791edac-7daa-4603-a220-
4a0c6c7a3f7a.pdf

English, D. M., & Schooley, D. K. (2014). The evolution of sustainability reporting: Utilizing the
GRI’s latest guidelines and looking to integrated reporting. The CPA Journal, (March
2014), 26–36.

Global Reporting Initiative. (n.d.). Sustainability Disclosure Database. Retrieved April 9, 2017,
from http://database.globalreporting.org/search/

Guthrie, J., & Parker, L. D. (1989). Corporate Social Reporting: A rebuttal of legitimacy theory.
Accounting and Business Research. http://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.1989.9728863

Hedberg, C. J., & Von Malmborg, F. (2003). The Global Reporting Initiative and corporate
sustainability reporting in Swedish companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, 10(3), 153–164. http://doi.org/10.1002/csr.38

Johnson, R. A., Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1964). Systems theory and management.
Management Science, 10(2), 367–384. http://doi.org/10.2307/2627306

Kolk, A. (2003). Trends in sustainability reporting by the Fortune Global 250. Business Strategy
and the Environment, 12(5), 279–291.

41
Kolk, A. (2008). Sustainability, accountability, and corporate governance: Exploring
multinational’s reporting practices. Business Strategy, 18(March 2006), 1–15.

KPMG. (2008). International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2008. Retrieved

from
http://www.kpmg.com/LU/en/IssuesAndInsights/Articlespublications/Documents/KPMG-
International-Survey-on-Corporate-Responsibility-Reporting.pdf

KPMG. (2013). The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2013. Retrieved from
https://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/corporate-
responsibility/Documents/corporate-responsibility-reporting-survey-2013-exec-
summary.pdf

KPMG. (2015). KPMG’s Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2015. Retrieved

February 26, 2017, from https://home.kpmg.com/xx/en/home/insights/2015/11/kpmg-
international-survey-of-corporate-responsibility-reporting-2015.html

KPMG, UNEP, GRI, & CCGA. (2016). Carrots and Sticks - Global Trends in Sustainability
Reporting Regulation and Policy. Amsterdam. Retrieved from
http://www.sseinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Carrots-Sticks-2016.pdf

Krippendorff, K. (1989). Content Analysis. In International encyclopedia of communication

(Vol. 1, pp. 403–407). Oxford University Press. Retrieved from
http://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/226

Manila Water Company. (n.d.). Conglomerate Map. Retrieved April 5, 2017, from
http://www.manilawater.com/Pages/OurCompany-ConglomerateMap.aspx

Manila Water Company. (2014). Sustainability Report 2013-2014. Quezon City. Retrieved from
http://www.manilawater.com/Pages/Sustainability Reports.aspx

Maynilad Water Services Inc. (n.d.-a). Coverage. Retrieved April 5, 2017, from
http://www.mayniladwater.com.ph/company-coverage.php

Maynilad Water Services Inc. (n.d.-b). History and Transformation. Retrieved April 5, 2017,
from http://www.mayniladwater.com.ph/company-history.php

42
Maynilad Water Services Inc. (2014). Maynilad 2013-2014 Sustainability Report. Quezon City.
Retrieved from http://www.mayniladwater.com.ph/news-dwn-sustainability.php

Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System. (2014). Metropolitan Waterworks and

Sewerage System 2014 Annual Report. Quezon City. Retrieved from
http://mwss.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/MWSS-Annual-Report-2014.pdf

Milne, M. J., & Gray, R. (2013). W(h)ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the Global
Reporting Initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 118,
13–29. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1543-8

Moneva, J., Archel, P., & Correa, C. (2006). GRI and the camouflaging of corporate
unsustainability. Accounting Forum, 30, 121–137.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2006.02.001

Morhardt, J. E., Baird, S., & Freeman, K. (2002). Scoring corporate environmental and
sustainability reports using GRI 2000, ISO 14031 and other criteria. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 9(4), 215–233.
http://doi.org/10.1002/csr.26

Ratanajongkol, S., Davey, H., & Low, M. (2006). Corporate social reporting in Thailand.
Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 3(1), 67–83.
http://doi.org/10.1108/11766090610659751

Roca, L. C., & Searcy, C. (2012). An analysis of indicators disclosed in corporate sustainability
reports. Journal of Cleaner Production, 20(1), 103–118.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.08.002

Romero, B. S., Lin, B. B., Jeffers, A. E., & DeGaetano, L. (2014). An overview of sustainability
reporting practices: Results of related research and recommendations for the future. The
CPA Journal, (March), 68–72.

Sawani, Y., Mohamed Zain, M., & Darus, F. (2010). Preliminary insights on sustainability
reporting and assurance practices in Malaysia. Social Responsibility Journal, 6(4), 627–645.
http://doi.org/10.1108/17471111011083482

43
Skouloudis, A., Evangelinos, K., & Kourmousis, F. (2010). Assessing non-financial reports
according to the Global Reporting Initiative guidelines: Evidence from Greece. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 18(5), 426–438. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.11.015

Sobhani, F. A., Amran, A., & Zainuddin, Y. (2009). Revisiting the practices of corporate social
and environmental disclosure in Bangladesh. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, 183, 167–183. http://doi.org/10.1002/csr.193

Sridhar, K., & Jones, G. (2013). The three fundamental criticisms of the triple bottom line
approach: An empirical study to link sustainability reports in companies based in the Asia-
Pacific region and TBL shortcomings. Asian Journal of Business Ethics, 2(1), 91–111.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s13520-012-0019-3

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy

of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. http://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080331

Suggett, D., & Goodsir, B. (2002). Triple bottom line measurement and reporting in Australia:
Making it tangible. Melbourne. Retrieved from
http://www.environment.gov.au/archive/settlements/industry/

Vormedal, I. H., & Ruud, A. (2009). Sustainability reporting in Norway - An assessment of

performance in the context of legal demands and socio-political drivers. Business Strategy
and the Environment, 18(4), 207–222. http://doi.org/10.1002/bse.560

World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (2002). Sustainable Development

Reporting: Striking the Balance. Geneva. Retrieved from
http://wbcsdservers.org/wbcsdpublications/cd_files/datas/financial_capital/reporting_invest
ment/pdf/SustainableDevReporting-Striking-the-balance.pdf

Yadava, R. N., & Sinha, B. (2016). Scoring sustainability reports using GRI 2011 guidelines for
assessing environmental, economic, and social dimensions of leading public and private
Indian companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(3), 549–558.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2597-1

44
 Bridging faith and scholarship ~ Influencing policy and practice

The Center for Business Research and Development (CBRD) is the research
and advocacy arm of the Ramon V. del Rosario College of Business
(RVRCOB) of De La Salle University (DLSU).

As a signatory of the United Nations – Principles for Responsible

Management Education (UN-PRME), the RVRCOB promotes the UN-PRME
principles, which encourage us, among others, to “engage in conceptual
and empirical research that advances our understanding about the role,
dynamics, and impact of corporations in the creation of sustainable social,
environmental and economic value”, and to “facilitate and support
dialogue and debate” among different stakeholders “on critical issues
related to global social responsibility and sustainability.”

Research thrusts
Keeping in mind DLSU’s mission “to be a leading learner-centered research
university, bridging faith and scholarship in the service of society, especially
the poor”, CBRD provides support to research programs and activities that
address the following themes: responsible management education,
multistream management approaches, humanistic management, ethical
business practices, sustainable business practices, corporate social
responsibility, corporate governance, social marketing, SME development,
family business management, and social entrepreneurship.

Room 214-A Medrano Hall, St. La Salle Building. 2401 Taft Avenue. Manila 1004. Philippines
+63-2-524-4611 loc. 149. +63-2-303-0869 (telefax) . http://www.dlsu.edu.ph/research/centers/cberd