Search results

Drawing on paradox theory and the category of the “performing-organizing” paradox, the study investigates the tensions firms experience in the context of organizing the processes involved in managing their indirect GHG emissions.

The authors develop hypotheses to explain why the paradox elements of supply chain transparency and supply chain coordination affect firms' ability to reduce their indirect supply chains GHG emissions. Using a two-stage method based on data from Refinitiv and CDP for 2002 to 2021, the authors test this study’s hypotheses through panel regression analyses.

While greater transparency experience with scope 3 emissions disclosure, GSCM practices and broader supply chain engagement are all associated with higher levels of scope 3 emissions levels, both long-term transparency experience and GSCM practices are also associated with relative reductions in scope 3 emissions over time.

Given growing pressures on firms to demonstrate both transparency and legitimacy regarding their scope 3 emissions, firms must understand the characteristics of this paradox as this has implications for how emissions performance is perceived and managed. This study's results suggested that firms need to take both a long-term perspective and effectively communicate the differences involved in reporting their emissions performance to avoid unwarranted criticism.

Filling a gap in sustainable OSCM studies by providing large-scale quantitative insights into the relationships between organizing and performing, the authors demonstrate that the processes involved in firms' efforts of measuring and managing their indirect scope 3 emissions are paradoxically affected by whether performance outcomes are specified as annual absolute levels of scope 3 emissions, or relative changes over time.

Avoided emissions refer to greenhouse gas emission reductions that are a result of using a product or are emission removals due to a decision or an action. Although there is no uniform standard for calculating avoided emissions, market actors have started referring to avoided emissions as “Scope 4” emissions. By default, making a claim about Scope 4 emissions gives an appearance that this Scope of emissions is a natural extension of the existing and accepted Scope-based emissions accounting framework. The purpose of this study is to explore the implications of this assumed legitimacy.

Via a desktop review and interviews, we analyse extant Scope 4 company reporting, associated accounting methodologies and the practical implications of Scope 4 claims.

Upon examination of Scope 4 emissions and their relationship with Scopes 1, 2 and 3 emissions, we highlight a dynamic and interdependent relationship between quantification, commensuration and standardization in emissions accounting. We find that extant Scope 4 assessments do not fit the established framework for Scope-based emissions accounting. In line with literature on the territorializing nature of accounting, we call for caution about Scope 4 claims that are a distraction from the critical work of reducing absolute emissions.

We examine the implications of assumed alignment and borrowed legitimacy of Scope 4 with Scope-based accounting because Scope 4 is not an actual Scope, but a claim to a Scope. This is as an act of accounting territorialization.

To better understand the impact of choosing a carbon data provider for the estimated portfolio emissions across four asset classes. This is important, as prior literature has suggested that Environmental, Social and Governance scores across providers have low correlation.

The authors compare carbon data from four data providers for developed and emerging equity markets and investment grade and high-yield corporate bond markets.

Data on scope 1 and scope 2 is similar across the four data providers, but for scope 3 differences can be substantial. Carbon emissions data has become more consistent across providers over time.

The authors examine the impact of different carbon data providers at the asset class level. Portfolios that invest only in a subset of the asset class may be affected differently. Because “true” carbon emissions are not known, the authors cannot investigate which provider has the most accurate carbon data.

The impact of choosing a carbon data provider is limited for scope 1 and scope 2 data for equity markets. Differences are larger for corporate bonds and scope 3 emissions.

The authors compare carbon accounting metrics on scopes 1, 2 and 3 of corporate greenhouse gas emissions carbon data from multiple providers for developed and emerging equity and investment grade and high yield investment portfolios. Moreover, the authors show the impact of filling missing data points, which is especially relevant for corporate bond markets, where data coverage tends to be lower.

Universities and their actions affect the environment directly and significantly. Therefore, the carbon footprint (CF) needs to be implemented in these institutions for mitigating climate change and its potential risks. Based on this understanding, the university consortium quality and environment (QualEnv) stands out by its main objective – to increase the university's contribution to sustainable development (SD) through the deployment of systematic environmental practices and quality processes. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to present the CF of the Latin American universities of the QualEnv consortium.

The study was based on the actions for adopting CF and its implementation at the universities that take part in the QualEnv consortium. The measurement process and report presentation were done properly by the universities and published as institutional documents. Therefore, data were collected and analyzed through a document search, systematic literature review and participant observation.

The results show knowledge deepening and systematization on CF in higher education. In addition, it presents the effort of a group of universities that, through a research network, seek to adopt practices towards a carbon-neutral university, which requires an incremental and systematic change to break out of the traditional system.

This paper discusses the practical implications for universities and the need to implement initiatives for measuring and reducing their CF since it shows how the institutions belonging to QualEnv consortium have created their own strategies to mitigate climate change and contribute to SD.

The purpose of this paper is to present a comprehensive analysis of the carbon footprint of the Delft University of Technology (TU Delft), including direct and indirect emissions from utilities, logistics and purchases, as well as a discussion about the commonly used method. Emissions are presented in three scopes (scope 1 reports direct process emissions, scope 2 reports emissions from purchased energy and scope 3 reports indirect emissions from the value chain) to identify carbon emission hotspots within the university’s operations.

The carbon footprint was calculated using physical and monetary activity data, applying a process and economic input-output analysis.

TU Delft’s total carbon footprint in 2018 is calculated at 106 ktCO₂eq. About 80% are indirect (scope 3) emissions, which is in line with other studies. Emissions from Real estate and construction, Natural gas, Equipment, ICT and Facility services accounted for about 64% of the total footprint, whereas Electricity, Water and waste-related carbon emissions were negligible. These findings highlight the need to reduce universities’ supply chain emissions.

A better understanding of carbon footprint hotspots can facilitate strategies to reduce emissions and finally achieve carbon neutrality. In contrast to other work, it is argued that using economic input-output models to calculate universities’ carbon footprints is a questionable practice, as they can provide only an initial estimation. Therefore, the development of better-suited methods is called for.

This study aims to examine the impact of board gender diversity on company greenhouse gas (GHG) performance, the influence of a critical mass of women on boards on carbon performance (CP) score and its three components separately (Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3). This study examines the presence of institutional investors as a contingent factor that intensifies the effectiveness of the critical mass of female directors on CP.

Using a sample of the US companies listed on Securities and Exchange Commission for the period 2011–2018 and making a total of 2416 observations. This study shows that reaching a critical mass of female board members enhances the level of CP. In addition, this study finds that the presence of institutional investors positively moderates this relationship.

The main results suggest that there is a nonlinear relationship between a critical mass of women directors and CP, and that institutional investors play a strategic role in shaping this relationship. The effect of institutional investors on the three components of CP is also analyzed.

This research is characterized by the methodology adopted for a quantitative variable for measuring CP. Indeed, other research the proxies related to carbon measurements are often used as a simple binary variable. This study verifies the harmony of the theory of critical mass measuring diversity within the board of directors, the presence of institutional investors on GHG emissions (Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3), unlike previous studies (Tingbani et al., 2020; Nuber and Velte, 2021) which only focus on the two measures of carbon emissions (Scope 1 and Scope 2).

This study shows identically that gender diversity on the board must reach a critical mass of three women directors to motivate and influence CP. We fill the gap in previous research regarding the role played by the institutional environment of the firm in improving CP. Third, this study highlights the relevance of having a critical mass of pressure-resistant female directors on boards due to their engagement in climate change issues and CP.

The emission of greenhouse gases has become an increasingly relevant topic in supply chain management. The steel industry is a highly intensive manufacturing industry with significant emission levels, particularly Scope 3 emissions, which are the indirect emissions from suppliers. Since a supply chain is seen as a non-mandatory measurement item within GHG measurement protocols, this article contributes to the literature on assessing the suppliers of a focal company relative to their emissions for complying with Scope 3 (indirect emissions). It adds to the evolving literature on low-carbon supply chains.

This study first conducted a survey with 110 suppliers from a focal transnational buyer company. A cluster analysis was performed, and ANOVA compared constructs relating to public or private ownership and country of origin. Finally, regression tested the relationship between the motivators and governance in the mitigation strategies.

Using cluster analysis, two groups of companies were found that have statistically significant differences. The influence of the country of origin was also found in relation to governance and mitigation strategies, as was the influence of the type of company on governance. Furthermore, the more motivated the suppliers and the more governance measures they adopt, the more companies adopt their own GHG mitigation strategies. These findings are summarized by way of an analytical framework that integrates the constructs with empirical evidence.

The steel industry is a sector that is particularly energy-intensive and produces millions of tons of CO₂ per year. Emissions from its SC (Scope 3) are relevant but still seen as a non-mandatory item for measurement purposes within the GHG measurement protocols, which leads to less attention being paid to the subject. This study contributes by way of its analytical framework that is validated by empirical data that can be tested in further studies.

This paper aims to examine whether an expectation gap exists between different stakeholders (i.e. emissions preparers, emissions assurers and shareholders) in relation to the assurance of greenhouse gas emissions. Further, the paper seeks to explore whether stakeholder expectations are influenced by the uncertainties inherent in the assurance engagement for different industry sectors (i.e. greenhouse gas emitter or greenhouse gas user entities).

An experimental survey was used to address the stated aims. Three stakeholder groups: shareholders, greenhouse gas emissions preparers and assurers, completed a survey based on the greenhouse gas emissions assurance for either an emitter or user entity.

The results provide support for the existence of an expectation gap in the emission assurance setting. Fundamental differences were identified between the stakeholder groups in relation to the responsibilities of the assurer and management; as well as the reliability and decision usefulness of the emissions statement. Moreover, the extent of the gap was found to differ between user entity engagements and emitter entity engagements.

The paper highlights the need for the assurance services profession and assurance standard setters to consider mechanisms to enhance the effectiveness of communicating the assurance function in this setting in order to enhance the credibility and social value of emissions assurance.

The paper is the first to examine the expectation gap in the greenhouse gas emissions assurance context. It thereby also contributes to the literature on the expectation gap in the assurance of non‐financial information. Moreover, the research findings provide standard setters with unique insights into areas to consider as they work toward the development of an international assurance standard for greenhouse gas emissions statements.

Worldwide, many carbon audit guidelines have been developed, but comparative reviews of these guidelines and empirical findings of carbon emissions from hotels remain limited. The aim of the study reported here was to bridge these knowledge gaps.

A comparative review of the legislations and guidelines for carbon audits in Australia, the UK and Hong Kong was made. An empirical audit, which entailed a series of site visits and interviews for collecting the record data of a typical hotel in Hong Kong, was conducted to identify the sources and amounts of carbon emissions from the hotel.

Conducting carbon audits for buildings in Hong Kong is entirely voluntary. Reporting of certain scopes of carbon emissions is at the sole discretion of the reporting party. Purchased electricity for the hotel is the dominant source of carbon emissions.

Audits in future may follow the reported audit process to identify carbon emissions from other hotels to enlarge the pool of empirical findings, which is a prerequisite to developing carbon emission benchmarks and carbon footprint analyses.

The suggestions made for overcoming the obstacles found from the audit are crucial for performing smoother and more complete audits in future.

The review findings and the practical problems identified are useful information for the stakeholders of carbon audits, including policy makers and facilities management practitioners.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the extent to which a sample of US-based higher education institution’s (HEI’s) climate targets and associated climate action planning efforts align with the definitions of and practices associated with science-based targets (SBTs) that are typically used to organize corporate climate efforts. This analysis will be used to explore similarities and tease out differences between how US-based HEIs and corporations approach sustainable target setting and organize sustainable action.

The degree of intersection between a sample of HEI climate action plans from Ivy Plus (Ivy+) schools and the current SBT initiative (SBTi) general corporate protocol was assessed by using an objective-oriented evaluative approach.

While there were some areas of overlap between HEI’s climate action planning and SBTi’s general corporate protocol – for instance, the setting of both short- and long-term targets and large-scale investments in renewable energy – significant areas of difference in sampled HEIs included scant quantitative Scope 3 targets, the use offsets to meet short-term targets and a low absolute annual reduction of Scope 1 and 2 emissions.

This paper unites diverse areas of literature on SBTs, corporate sustainability target setting and sustainability in higher education. It provides an overview of the potential benefits and disadvantages of HEIs adopting SBTs and provides recommendations for the development of sector-specific SBTi guidelines.