Influence of ferrous metallurgy enterprises on atmospheric air quality as an ecological component of territories sustainable development. Report 2

The adoption of the UN Sustainable Development Goals until 2030 served as an impulse for development and implementation of regulatory legal acts aimed at environmental protection in the Russian Federation, including appropriate fnancial mechanisms. The task of reducing level of air pollution is highlighted in the UN program documents as one of the priorities. The most problematic in terms of air pollution in Russia are 12 cities, seven of which have ferrous metallurgy enterprises. The problems of ecological development of large industrial centers remain (despite the implementation of the state program of the Russian Federation “Environmental Protection” since 2012, and the national project “Ecology” since 2019) introduction of a quota system for pollutant emissions substances, determination of the list of compensatory measures and creation of the federal information system for atmospheric air quality monitoring. In cities such as Krasnoyarsk and Novokuznetsk, the average actual annual concentration of some pollutants, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic substances of I and II hazard classes, exceeds the permissible maximum by 5 – 6 times. We have analyzed content of the reports of the specialized state authorities at the regional level on state and protection of environment. It is concluded that there is no unity of methodological approaches to presentation of analytical information on state and quality of atmospheric air in reports, as well as untimely publication of the reports themselves. The fact of inertia of the institutional environment was revealed in terms of including irrelevant norms in the adopted legal acts, and as a consequence – emergence of expenditure obligations of budgets, without real need for them. It was established that large enterprises of ferrous metallurgy (Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant PJSC (Mechel) and Krasnoyarsk Metallurgical Plant LLC), operating in cities with very high levels of air pollution, did not draw up corporate non­fnancial reporting in the GRI format.

1. Ofcial site of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of Kuzbass. Reports on the state and protection of the environment of the Kemerovo region – Kuzbass. Available at URL: http://kuzbasseco.ru/doklady/o­sostoyanii­okruzhayushhej­sredy­kemerovskojoblasti/ (Accessed 26.07.2021). (In Russ.).

2. Ofcial site of the Ministry of Ecology of the Chelyabinsk region. Reports on the ecological situation in the Chelyabinsk region. Available at URL: http://kuzbasseco.ru/doklady/o­sostoyanii­okruzhayushhej­sredy­kemerovskoj­oblasti/ (Accessed 26.07.2021). (In Russ.).

3. Ofcial site of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of the Sverdlovsk Region. State reports “On the state and protection of the environment of the Sverdlovsk region”. Available at URL: https://mprso.midural.ru/article/show/id/1126 (Accessed 26.07.2021). (In Russ.).

4. Ofcial site of the Ministry of Ecology and Rational Nature Management of the Krasnoyarsk Territory. State reports “On the state and protection of the environment in the Krasnoyarsk Territory”. Available at URL: http://www.mpr.krskstate.ru/envir/page5849 (Accessed 26.07.2021). (In Russ.).

5. Ofcial site of the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of the Vologda Region. Reports on the state and protection of the environment in the Vologda Region. Available at URL: https://dpr.gov35.ru/deyatelnost/deyatelnoststrukturnykh­podrazdeleniy/sostoyanie­okruzhayushchey­sredy/(Accessed 26.07.2021). (In Russ.).

6. Ofcial site of the Department of Ecology and Natural Resources of the Lipetsk Region. Reports on the state and protection of the environment of the Lipetsk region. Available at URL: http://ekolip.ru/folder1/ (Accessed 26.07.2021). (In Russ.).

7. Glushakova O.V., Chernikova O.P. Influence of ferrous metallurgy enterprises on atmospheric air quality as an ecological component of territories sustainable development. Report 1. Izvestiya. Ferrous Metallurgy. 2021, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 292–301. https://doi.org/10.17073/0368-0797-2021-4-292-301

8. Finch N. The Motivations for Adopting Sustainability Disclosure (August 2005). MGSM Working Paper No. 2005-17. Available at URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=798724 (Accessed 26.07.2021).

9. Nazim Н. Impact of Sustainability Performance on Financial Performance: An Empirical Study of Global Fortune (N100) Firms (June 10, 2015). Department of Management, Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia Working Paper No. 2015/01. Available at URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2616835 (Accessed 26.07.2021).

10. Erina M.T., Rashid A. Relationship between Corporate Sustainability Practices and Financial Performance: Evidence from the GRI Reporting Companies (September 25, 2012). Available at URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2152124 (Accessed 26.07.2021).

11. Oba V., Ibikunle J. Issues in Sustainability Accounting: A Global Reporting Initiative Perspective (January 2, 2015). Available at URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2544555 (Accessed 26.07.2021).

12. Gallego­Álvarez I., Lozano M.B., Rodríguez­Rosa M. An analysis of the environmental information in international companies according to the new GRI standards. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018, vol. 182, pp. 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.240

13. Chen L., Tang O., Feldmann A. Applying GRI reports for the investigation of environmental management practices and company performance in Sweden, China and India. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2015, vol. 98, pp. 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.001

14. Chen L., Feldmann A., Tang O. The relationship between disclosures of corporate social performance and fnancial performance: Evidences from GRI reports in manufacturing industry. International Journal of Production Economics. 2015, vol. 170, pp. 445–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.04.004

15. Boiral O., Heras­Saizarbitoria I. Best practices for corporate commitment to biodiversity: An organizing framework from GRI reports. Environmental Science & Policy. 2017, vol. 77, pp. 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.012

16. García­Sánchez I.M., Gómez­Miranda M.E., David F., RodríguezAriza L. Board independence and GRI­IFC performance standards: The mediating effect of the CSR committee. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019, vol. 225, pp. 554–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.337

17. Fuente J.A., García­Sánchez I.M., Lozano M.B. The role of the board of directors in the adoption of GRI guidelines for the disclosure of CSR information. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2017, vol. 141, pp. 737–750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.337

18. Tsalis T.A., Nikolaou I.E., Evangelinos K.I. Evaluating the corporate environmental profle by analyzing corporate social responsibility reports. Economic Analysis and Policy. 2020, vol. 66, pp. 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2020.02.009

19. Haffar M., Searcy C. The use of context­based environmental indicators in corporate reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018, vol. 192, pp. 496–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.202

20. Kaya I. The Mandatory Social and Environmental Reporting: Evidence from France. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2016, vol. 229, pp. 206–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.07.130

21. Mealy P., Teytelboym A. Economic complexity and the green economy. Research Policy. 2020, article 103948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.103948

22. Hess D. Social reporting and new governance regulation: the prospects of achieving corporate accountability through transparency. Business Ethics Quarterly. 2007, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 453–476. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq200717348

23. Kuzubov S.A., Evdokimova M.S. Does the publication of GRI nonfnancial reports add value to the company? (On the example of the BRICS countries). Uchet. Analiz. Audit. 2017, no. 2, pp. 28–36. (In Russ.).

24. Golubeva N.A. Internal audit: Support in solving the problem of compliance with GRI and ISO 26000 standards to identify company stakeholders and assess their claims. Mezhdunarodnyi bukhgalterskii uchet. 2011, no. 17 (167), pp. 23–30. (In Russ.).

25. Evdokimov V.V., Grishchenko O.O. GRI principles in reporting system of sustainable development. Mezhdunarodnyi bukhgalterskii uchet. 2013, no. 22 (268), pp. 44–53. (In Russ.).

26. Bobrova O.S., Malaikina I.V. Sustainable development: How do energy companies in Russia understand it. Vestnik YuzhnoUral’skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: ekonomika i menedzhment. 2018, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 63–79. (In Russ.).

27. Rykova I.N., Golubeva N.A. Evolution of corporate social reporting of Russian enterprises. Mezhdunarodnyi bukhgalterskii uchet. 2010, no. 9 (141), pp. 2–11. (In Russ.).

28. Evdokimov V.V., Lagovskaya E.A., Gritsishen D.A. International models of regulation of enterprise reporting on sustainable development. Mezhdunarodnyi bukhgalterskii uchet. 2012, no. 16 (214), pp. 44–52. (In Russ.).

29. Lazarenko A.L., Dumanova N.A., Podrezenko E.V. Corporate reporting as a tool to improve the company efciency. Vestnik OrelGIET. 2016, no. 1 (35), pp. 11–14. (In Russ.).