Search results

This study investigates whether carbon media legitimacy is influenced by carbon performance and/or carbon disclosure using a direct measure of carbon media legitimacy in UK context.

To test this study's hypotheses, the authors employ Tobit regression analysis of 95 UK companies listed in FTSE350. The authors use balanced panel data (475 observations in total) to reduces the noise introduced by unit heterogeneity.

The authors find that while corporate carbon performance is not reflected in carbon media legitimacy, carbon media legitimacy is positively and significantly affected by voluntary carbon disclosure (irrespective of its quality). Thus, voluntary carbon disclosure is shown to be an effective tool in legitimising corporate activities.

The results show a certain degree of naivety on the part of the media in assessing corporate carbon behaviour, since it values carbon disclosure (irrespective of its quality) more than carbon performance. Such media behaviour may hinder future improvement in carbon performance of firms.

This study's results indicate that the existing UK carbon disclosure policy does not address the heart of climate change and global warming. Thus, tougher regulations should be considered by policy-makers in relation to voluntary carbon disclosure in the UK.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to examine whether carbon media legitimacy is associated with both carbon performance and carbon disclosure using a direct measure of carbon media legitimacy, and to use the UK context when addressing this association. It also examines the effectiveness of quality of carbon disclosure as legitimation tool.

With the growing attention around carbon emissions disclosure, the demand for external carbon assurance on emissions reports has been increasing by stakeholders as it provides additional credibility and confidence. This study investigates the association between the higher level of external carbon assurance and improvement in a firm's carbon emissions. It provides an understanding of corporate incentives for obtaining a higher level of carbon assurance, particularly in relation to carbon performance enhancements.

Data are collected from 170 US companies for the period 2012–2017 and are analysed using a change analysis. Generalised method of moment (GMM) is used to address endogeneity.

Following the rationales taken by legitimacy and “outside-in” management views, the findings reveal that a higher level of carbon assurance (i.e. reasonable assurance) marginally improves firms' carbon performance (i.e. reported carbon emissions). This is consistent with “outside-in” management view suggesting that a higher level of assurance could be utilised as a tool for accessing more information about stakeholders' needs and concerns, which can be useful in enhancing carbon performance.

The findings are generalisable to US firms and may not extend to other contexts.

The implication of this study for companies is that a high level of sustainability assurance is a useful tool to access detailed information about stakeholder concerns, of which internalisation can help to marginally improve carbon performance. For policymakers, the insights into and enhanced understanding of the incentives for obtaining carbon assurance can help policymakers to develop effective policies and initiatives for carbon assurance. Considering the possible improvements in carbon performance when obtaining a high level of sustainability verification, governments need to consider mandating carbon assurance.

This study extends the existing studies of assurance in sustainability context as well as in carbon context by explaining why companies voluntarily get expensive external verification (i.e. higher level of assurance) of their carbon emissions disclosure. This study responds to calls in the literature for empirical research investigating the association between environmental performance and external assurance with a focus on level of assurance.

1. A higher level of carbon assurance Marginally improves firms' carbon performance.

2. Corporate incentives to obtain higher level of carbon assurance is beyond seeking legitimacy.

3. Higher level of assurance is a useful tool for accessing more information about stakeholders' concerns.

4. Consistent with “ouside-in”management view, companies internalise stakeholders' concerns to marginally improve performance.

A higher level of carbon assurance Marginally improves firms' carbon performance.

Corporate incentives to obtain higher level of carbon assurance is beyond seeking legitimacy.

Higher level of assurance is a useful tool for accessing more information about stakeholders' concerns.

Consistent with “ouside-in”management view, companies internalise stakeholders' concerns to marginally improve performance.

This paper aims to investigate various institutional pressures driving the adoption and implementation of a new risk management system; enterprise risk management (ERM).

The implementation of ERM-related practices is analysed based on an institutional framework and drawing on empirical evidence from multiple sources in ten large/medium-sized insurance companies. This paper focuses on extra-organisational pressures exerted by political, social and economic institutions on insurance companies which drove the adoption decision.

It was found that different change agents have taken part in the decision to introduce new risk management system as a part of ERM implementation process. Further, the institutional pressures, coercive, mimetic and normative, were found to differ in character and strength over different intervals of time in relation to the adoption of ERM. Companies that adopted ERM early were mostly driven by internal strategic drivers, whereas the recent adoption decision was more driven by coercive and mimetic pressures. Thus, evidence of divergence between insurance companies was found.

The findings have implications for policy makers, regulatory agencies and innovation developers. ERM was considered not only as a necessity but also as a value added to the insurance companies under study. Thus, regulators and innovation developers should survey main players in any specific organisational field to understand their views before issuing new compulsory regulations or developing innovations. They also need to consider exploring companies’ experiences with ERM, which can provide a basis for the development of strengthened and more informative regulatory ERM frameworks. This will support a faster and easier understanding and implementation of ERM framework hindered by the confusions companies may face when considering the complicated/changing regulatory and risk requirements.

This study extends the scope of institutional analysis to the risk management field, particularly ERM and to the explanation of how different institutions affect the decision to move towards ERM and modify the risk management rules applied within the organisational environment. It looks not only at convergences but also divergences associated with the period of time when ERM adoption decision was made. Thus, it develops a processual view of change.