Section 2 Peer Responses

Responding to Post 1

Hello,

Great work with your post. The analysis done for BP and Harley-Davidson regarding their compliance with sustainability frameworks offers valuable insight. It highlights the place of transparency in their corporate reporting. The approach adopted by BP in which TCFD compliance is linked to a separate website makes it complicated for stakeholders to access relevant information with ease, notwithstanding the breakdown provided in their annual report: Section 2 Peer Responses.

However, this is not the case for Harley Davidson. Besides, Harley Davidson provides a table that explicitly maps their compliance across TCFD, GRI, and SASB frameworks. In addition, I agree that this makes it easier for stakeholders to use the information.

The explanation regarding the importance of providing a detailed disclosure on matters of climate risks is commendable. Notably, this is so because better governance plays a vital role in ensuring companies stick to their sustainability commitments (Hristov & Searcy, 2025).

Reference

Hristov, I., & Searcy, C. (2025). Integrating sustainability with corporate governance: A framework to implement the corporate sustainability reporting directive through a balanced scorecard. Management Decision, 63(2), 443-467.  https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-10-2023-1995

Responding to Post 2

Hello,

This is a great post on how Nike and Coca-Cola report sustainability matters. I agree with you that there should be transparency in connecting sustainability reporting to various frameworks. I take note that the two companies provide a clear outline of their adherence to GRI and SASB frameworks. The inclusion of the TCFD framework adds to the company’s accountability.

Arguably, this could be the basis for concluding that Coca-Cola has a better sustainability reporting approach. Nonetheless, there is room for improvement for the companies. Notably, this is so because many companies often summarize compliance without providing in-depth insights into their sustainability initiatives (Caputo et al., 2021).

Therefore, the move for the two companies to enhance their sustainability reporting will be important in building stakeholder trust. Even though there are minor differences in reporting by the companies, it is evident that both companies effectively report their compliance with sustainability frameworks.

Reference

Caputo, F., Ligorio, L., & Pizzi, S. (2021). The contribution of higher education institutions to the SDGs—An evaluation of sustainability reporting practices. Administrative Sciences, 11(3), 97. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11030097

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

section 2

1.

For BP, they do not clearly state how they comply with the framework, TCFD. Towards the end of the report, they have a section that provides a link that brings you to a different website. This website provides the correct information on how BP follows the guidelines by providing page numbers for the Annual Report to illustrate how they are following the TCFD guidelines. BP provides a table that lists all of TCFD’s recommended disclosures and with each disclosure, the company provides the appropriate page numbers to find this information in their Annual Report.

They use the same process as the GRI standard. In the designated area where BP talks about the TCFD framework, they explicitly explain how they are following the TCFD standards by going into depth with what they are doing. They are also providing page numbers to support their claim in following the framework. Overall, BP gives a complete overview of how the company is fulfilling the requirement in following the TCFD framework.

BP: https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/investors/bp-annual-report-and-form-20f-2023.pdf

When looking at Harley Davidson’s information, they provide an index for TCFD, GRI, and SASB. What I like about Harley Davidson is that they use a table to describe the company’s response to each topic in the different frameworks. This helps give a better understanding of how the company is completely following each framework they have set in place. It is portrayed that Harley Davidson is complying with the frameworks because the company provides a response on how they are complying with the framework.

For example, TCFD has a disclosure item that asks the company to explain how the board has oversight on climate-related risks and opportunities. Harley Davidson complies with this disclosure item because they state that the board of directors is chartered with responsibility for oversight of sustainability-related issues, which includes climate-related risks/opportunities. They go further in-depth into the areas the committee overlooks and the actions they are taking during their oversight in this area. This is only one area where Harley Davidson shows they are compliant with the framework, but they also do it with every other item for each framework.

Needless to say, BP and Harley Davidson completely show they are complying with the frameworks they have set in place. By the company’s continuing giving specific descriptions of how they are complying with the frameworks, they are showing they are complying with the frameworks.

Harley Davidson: https://s201.q4cdn.com/697889289/files/doc_governance/2024/Dec/19/2023-HOG-ESG-Data-Appendix-d63b63.pdf

Section 2 Peer Responses

2.

When looking over the sustainability report of Nike, they provide information and an index on the frameworks of GRI and SASB. In these indexes, they provide tables filled with different types of information. In the GRI index, the tables include GRI number, disclosure, location and notes, omission, and UNGC principle that relate to the GRI framework.

In the SASB index, the tables are divided into different parts such as the topic at hand, its category, unit of measure, code, data, and reference that relate to the SASB framework. Throughout both of these indexes and tables provided, Nike specifically goes through the details on how they address these specific metrics that align with both the GRI and SASB framework.

When looking over the sustainability report for Coca-Cola, they provide information and an index on the frameworks of GRI, SASB, and TCFD. Their GRI and SASB indexes are very similar to Nikes. In Coca-Colas GRI index, they include information such as the general disclosures, their response, and additional references.

For their SASB index, information includes the topic at hand, accounting metric, code, and response. As for TCFD, the information in those tables includes many different elements such as governance, disclosure, strategy, risk management, metrics and targets, and reference links. Through these indexes, Coca-Cola does a solid job on listing standards and the details on how they comply with each of these three frameworks.

Overall, Nike and Coca-Cola do pretty well with reporting on how they comply with the frameworks in which they claim to follow. They both clearly locate where they report on the frameworks they claim to follow as well as detailed information on how they comply with each of those frameworks. After deeply going through both reports, you could make a claim that both companies have some room for improvement.

One area in which both companies could improve upon involves going into more depth on their disclosures as they tend to be somewhat brief. Other than that, both Nike and Coca-Cola do a solid job at complying with the frameworks in which they claim to follow such as GRI, SASB, and TCFD.