Search results

This paper aims to exploit the varying level of responses to the carbon disclosure project (CDP) to assess the economic consequences of carbon emission disclosure by disclosure level. Economic theory suggests that increased disclosures by a firm should lower the information asymmetry component of the firm’s cost of capital. Using CDP disclosures by US firms, the authors study the effect of voluntary carbon emission on the information asymmetry risk in capital markets.

The authors conduct cross-sectional analyses to examine whether, from the investor perspective, firms with varying CDP disclosure levels experience differential information asymmetric risk. The authors also conduct a pre- and post-disclosure comparison to examine whether the market responds to first-time carbon emission disclosure with decreases in the relative bid-ask spread.

In the cross-sectional analysis, the authors find that firms that decline to disclose carbon emission information, firms that provide incomplete information and firms that do not respond to the CDP survey have higher information asymmetry than firms that provide complete information and opt to make it available to the public. Using a pre- and post-disclosure comparison, the authors find that the market responds to first-time carbon emission disclosure with decreases in the relative bid-ask spread. Additionally, only firms that participate, provide complete disclosures and opt to make it available to the public enjoy the largest reduction in bid-ask spreads, which is followed by firms that provide incomplete information. Other firms do not experience a reduction in information asymmetry.

This study examines the impact of CDP disclosures on information asymmetry using a US sample. The results of the study may not be generalizable to other countries that have different institutional arrangements and settings.

The study has important social and policy implications. The findings on the role of carbon emission disclosures in reducing information asymmetry in the capital markets suggest the need for policymakers to promote greater carbon emission disclosures in the USA and other countries where such disclosures have been traditionally less emphasized. As to stakeholders, bringing corporate carbon emission disclosure in line with recommended guidelines will require them to exercise more direct stakeholder pressure to encourage firms to fully participate in the CDP project. This is particularly critical in settings of regulatory inaction and weak enforcement with respect to environmental policies and disclosure such as the USA.

The results span the current gap between two broad perspectives on corporate social responsibilities. The traditional shareholder perspective argues that companies only participate in socially responsible activities which increase shareholder value, while an alternate perspective argues that companies also undertake social responsibilities to benefit society even at the cost of shareholders (Moser and Martin, 2012). The study demonstrates that the two perspectives are not always at odds, carbon emission disclosure not only provides important information on the corporate social responsibility of the firm but also contributes to enriching the information environment leading to reduced information asymmetry in the equity markets for US firms. Thus, from both a stakeholder and capital market perspective, firms have incentives to provide carbon emission disclosures voluntarily. More direct stakeholder pressure may be helpful to encourage more firms to provide complete carbon emission information and opt to make it available to the public.

Few studies investigate the impact of CDP disclosure on the information environment of public companies. The lack of research on this key connection between new disclosures on carbon emissions and information asymmetry in the capital markets is the primary motivation for the paper. The study also provides important insights on disclosure level; just participating in the CDP survey is not enough, the degree of participation is also important. The results of the study suggest that the varying level of disclosure matters, the greatest benefits in terms of reduction of information asymmetry accrue to firms that provide complete information and opt to make it available to the public.

This paper aims to investigate the relationship between gender diversity and the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) score/index. Specifically, the study describes extant research on theoretical perspectives, and the impact of women on corporate boards (WOBs) on carbon emission issues in the global perspective.

This study uses the carbon disclosure scores of the CDP from 2011 to 2013 (inclusive). A total observation for the three-year periods is 1,175 companies. However, based on data availability for the model, the sample size totals 331 companies in 33 countries with firms in 12 geographical locations. The authors used a model which is estimated using the fixed-effects estimator.

The outcomes of the study reveal that there is a positive relationship between gender diversity (WOB) and carbon disclosure information. In addition to establishing a relationship between CDP score and other control variables, this study also found a relationship with Board size, asset size, energy consumption and Tobin’s Q, which is common in the existing literature.

The limitations of the study mostly revolve around samples and the time period. To further test the generalizability and cross-sectional validity of the outcomes, it is suggested that the proposed framework be tested in more socially responsible firms.

There are increasing pressures for WOBs from diverse stakeholders, such as the European Commission, national governments, politicians, employer lobby groups, shareholders, Fortune and Financial Times Stock Exchange (FTSE) rankings and best places for women to work lists. The study offers insights to policy makers implementing gender quota legislation.

The study has important implications for putting into practice good corporate governance and, in particular, gender diversity. The outcomes of the analyses advocate that companies that included women directors and had a smaller board size may expect to achieve a higher level of carbon emission performance and to voluntarily disclose the level of carbon information assessment requested by the CDP.

This study aims to analyse the relationship between countries’ regulatory context and voluntary carbon disclosures. To date, little attention has been paid to how specific climate change-related regulation influences companies’ climate change disclosures, especially voluntary carbon reporting.

The New Institutional Sociology perspective has been adopted to examine the pressure of a country’s climate change regulation on voluntary carbon reporting. This research uses Tobit regression to analyse data from 2,183 companies in 12 countries that were invited to respond to the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) questionnaire in 2015.

The results show that countries’ specific climate change-related regulation does influence both the participation of its companies in the CDP and their quality, as measured by the CDP disclosure score.

The sample is restricted to 12 countries’ regulatory environment. Thus, caution should be exercised when generalising the results to other institutional contexts.

The results are of use to regulators and policymakers to better understand how specific climate change-related regulation influences voluntary carbon disclosure. Investors may also benefit from this research, as it shows which institutional contexts present greater regulatory stringency and how companies in more stringent environments take advantage of synergy to disclose high-quality carbon information.

By linking regulatory and voluntary reporting, this study sheds light on how companies use voluntary carbon reporting to adapt to social expectations generated in their institutional context.

This is the first research that considers specific climate change-related regulation in the study of voluntary carbon disclosures.

This study is justified by the economic importance of information on greenhouse gases, as well as the interest in the question of governance structure after the adoption of the objectives of the 2030 Agenda. The problem is also explained by the lack of research that has investigated the relationship between the best governance structure that contributes to achieving sustainability goals, including climate actions (SDG13) and clean energy adoption (SDG7) as part of the 2030 Agenda.

The level of disclosure is measured on the basis of the carbon disclosure score calculated by the carbon disclosure project (CDP). The study sample consists of 387 US companies that voluntarily participated in the CDP survey from 2011 to 2018. The authors use panel data analysis based on multiple regression models.

The results confirm the influential role of board size, director independence, the presence of women on the board and the presence of an environmental committee on carbon disclosure. In terms of carbon disclosure, the results suggest that a better governance structure is likely to reduce carbon emissions and improve carbon performance practices. Similarly, the analyses show a different representation of the role of corporate governance in high-carbon sectors compared to low-carbon sectors.

This study has some limitations. First, the sample is only interested in US companies that responded to the CDP questionnaire during the period 2011–2018. Thus, the results cannot be generalized to countries with different governance structures. Second, the data from this study on carbon disclosure, specifically focuses on CDP reporting to determine the carbon disclosure score. In this sense, the findings on information disclosed do not necessarily address disclosures through other media, such as a company’s website or a press release.

Sustainability and commitment to the sustainable development goals (SDGs) are more likely to exist in companies that have good governance and, in particular, a better board. The research is inspired by the SDGs. The study aims to examine the relationship between carbon disclosure and corporate governance in the context of SDGs. Indeed, this research work contributes to achieving sustainability goals, including climate actions (SDG13) and clean energy adoption (SDG7).

This paper aims to identify and analyze the factors contributing to the decision of organizations to disclose carbon information, as well as its transparency level.

The Tobit regression is used to analyze the results of the Spanish companies that were invited in 2012 to respond to the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) questionnaire. The results of this study are interpreted according to the legitimacy and stakeholder theories.

The results show that the probability of carbon disclosure and its transparency level are explained by the influence of pressures from society, markets, shareholders and international interactions. In the Spanish case, the factors that have shown a stronger influence are the size of the company, financial risk, their listing in the IBEX35 and FT500 indexes and the ownership concentration.

One of the main contributions of this study to the previous literature lies in the used research method. Thus, while previous studies analyze the factors that can determine whether companies disclose carbon information, this paper has also considered the quantification and differentiation of the effect of these factors on the probability of supplying this information, as well as obtaining a higher score in the CDP questionnaire, representing a higher transparency level in the information provided. For this objective, the usefulness of the Tobit regression is to be highlighted.

This study investigates the impact of the Paris Agreement (and other factors) on carbon information disclosures to the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP).

A sample of South African listed companies was selected and data analysed from 2013 to 2017. A random effect panel data model using SPSS was used to determine whether the Paris Agreement had an effect on carbon information disclosure.

The results indicate that (1) the Paris Agreement, as an example of an intergovernmental coordination initiative, is significant in creating awareness and increasing the carbon disclosures to the CDP. Furthermore, (2) in terms of the other factors examined, providing incentives for managing climate change and assessing climate risks further into the future improves disclosure quality, while no relationship was found between the CDP score and the approval by key management personnel.

This research examines CDP disclosures for an emerging market before and after the signing of the Paris Agreement.

This research shows the importance of supportive government policy. Furthermore, a commitment to climate change disclosure is manageable and achievable and needs to be implemented at the management level.

The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of emission trading system, board risk management committee and firm age on firms’ responsiveness to climate change in Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) 2011. More specifically, this study investigates whether global corporation’s responses on carbon-related disclosure are influenced by some specific attributes.

The study covers a sample of 500 companies in 38 countries in 12 geographical locations. It uses the carbon disclosure scores in the CDP 2011 as the dependent variable. The authors estimate the OLS regression model to investigate the hypotheses.

The findings demonstrate that the presence of an emission trading system, a board risk management committee and the firm age have a significant positive relationship with carbon disclosure scores (i.e. CDP scores). However, the impacts of the board risk management committee and firm age on CDP scores are not moderated by the emission trading system at the firm level, suggesting that they have an independent and substitutive effect on climate change-related risk disclosure.

The study may be of relevance to investors and other stakeholders in evaluating the accountability of companies in relation to strategies for managing climate risk.

This study aims to examine whether good carbon performers disclose more carbon information overall than poor performers, and if yes, how firms select different types of carbon information to signal their genuine superior carbon performance.

The level of disclosure is measured based on content analysis of Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) reports. The study sample consists of 487 US companies that voluntarily participated in the CDP survey from 2011 to 2012. The authors use the t-test and multiple regression models for analyses.

The results consistently indicate that firms with better carbon performance disclose a greater amount of overall carbon information, supporting the signalling theory. In addition, in contrast to previous studies that merely consider the overall disclosure level, the authors also investigate disclosure of each major aspect of carbon activities. The results show that good carbon performers disclose more key carbon items, such as goods and services that avoid greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, external verification and carbon accounting, to signal their true type.

This study has some limitations. The authors rely on CDP reports for analysis and focus on the largest companies in the USA. Caution should be exercised when generalising the results to other countries, smaller firms or voluntary carbon information disclosed in other communications channels.

Because carbon disclosure has already been moving from a voluntary to mandatory requirement in many jurisdictions, the format and content of CDP reports might be considered for a formal standalone GHG statement. Based on the results, the authors believe that there should be industry-specific disclosure guidelines, and more disclosure should be made at the project level.

In the context of climate change, this study provides support for the signalling theory by utilising the relationship between voluntary carbon disclosure and performance. The study also provides empirical evidence on how companies may use different types of carbon information to signal their underlying carbon performance.

Cities are crucial to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This paper aims to explore the quality of GHG disclosures by cities via the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) and compares them with the expectations of users.

The expectation gap framework is used to examine the GHG disclosure quality of 42 cities. User expectations are determined via a literature review and CDP documentation. City disclosures are reviewed using content analysis.

GHG information at the city level is outdated, incomplete, inconsistent, inaccurate and incomparable and, therefore, to meet user expectations, improvement is needed.

The findings have implications for policymakers, stakeholders and managers. Guidelines are required for better disclosure of GHG information relating to cities, and stakeholders need to develop better skills to understand emissions information. Managers have a responsibility to measure, disclose and mitigate GHG emissions to meet the expectations of stakeholders.

Prior studies focus on GHG disclosures via the CDP by corporations. This is the first accounting study to examine GHG disclosures by cities via the CDP. The expectation gap framework is a novel approach to sustainability disclosure research.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate differences in voluntary carbon disclosure between developing and developed countries and the role of resource availability in explaining these differences.

The authors used a sample consisting of 2,045 large firms from 15 countries and representing divergent industries that released Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) company reports in 2009. Profitability, leverage and growth were used as proxies for the degree of resource availability and the firm's participation in the CDP was used as a proxy for carbon disclosure propensity.

Consistent with the authors' predictions, the empirical results show that the carbon disclosure propensity is correlated in the right direction with resource availability proxies; this relationship is stronger in developing nations, suggesting that the shortage of resources is one reason for the lack of commitment to carbon mitigation and disclosure in these countries. The results are robust when disclosure motivation proxies are controlled for. In addition, it is shown that firms tend to disclose carbon information if their shares are owned by CDP signatories, because it allows them to be viewed as more powerful stakeholders. This finding, which enhances the validity of stakeholder theory, previously has not been documented in the literature.

The findings are relevant to the world's largest organisations, as determined by their market capitalisation. Thus, caution should be exercised to generalise the paper's inferences to small or medium‐sized organisations.

The evidence suggests that resource shortages may constrain a firm management's carbon decisions. As the regulatory environment becomes more stringent, firms, particularly those in developing countries need to take a more proactive strategy to tackle global warming challenges and balance the need to achieve financial goals and prevent carbon pollution with their limited resources.

Although prior studies typically considered external pressures that motivated voluntary environmental disclosure, the paper's results offer extra insight and suggest that resource restriction provides a complementary explanation – largely ignored in the existing literature – for variation in the carbon‐disclosure propensity of firms.