Corporate carbon performance (CCP) has become a central topic in political, financial, and academic domains. At the same time, several characteristics of CCP data, including comparability and consistency, remain unresolved. The literature has extensively covered issues regarding the comparability of CCP data from a firm‐internal perspective. However, it has not yet examined the consistency of CCP data between third‐party data providers. This article investigates the degree of CCP data consistency between third‐party providers according to three dimensions: scope (i.e., direct and indirect emissions), scheme (i.e., mandatory and voluntary reporting schemes), and source (i.e., data stemming from corporate reports and from third‐party estimation methods). The results reveal that data on direct emissions are more consistent than data on indirect emissions, and they are especially inconsistent for Scope 3. Second, mandatory and voluntary reporting schemes do not substantially improve the consistency of CCP data, which is surprising. Third, third‐party estimations are less consistent as compared to data stemming directly from corporate reports; however, the combination of Scopes 1 and 2 third‐party estimated data raises consistency levels. On the basis of these results, we conclude the following key implications: academic researchers must be mindful of the consistency of CCP data, because it can significantly affect empirical results, corporate management should avoid situations where different CCP data are communicated externally, investors should engage firms to follow a standardized approach, data providers should increase the transparency about their estimation methods, and policy makers need to be aware of the importance of a sound and standardized methodology to determine CCP.

We examine whether and how mandatory climate reporting leads to changes in firms’ carbon emissions. Drawing on legitimacy theory and using a difference-in-differences design, we assess the effect of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), introduced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2010, on the carbon performance defined as carbon intensity and absolute carbon emissions of affected firms. We find that firms affected by the GHGRP improve their carbon intensity significantly more than unaffected firms after the introduction of the GHGRP, but not their absolute carbon emissions. The results are robust to changes in the difference-in-differences design. Overall, our study contributes to research on mandatory climate reporting by assessing the GHGRP’s suitability to generate a real sustainable change in firms’ operations and reduce their negative impact on our climate.

No abstract

Corporate carbon performance (CCP) has become a central topic in political, financial, and academic domains. At the same time, several characteristics of CCP data, including comparability and consistency, remain unresolved. The literature has extensively covered issues regarding the comparability of CCP data from a firm-internal perspective. However, it has not yet examined the consistency of CCP data between third-party data providers. This article investigates the degree of CCP data consistency between third-party providers according to three dimensions: scope (i.e., direct and indirect emissions), scheme (i.e., mandatory and voluntary reporting schemes), and source (i.e., data stemming from corporate reports and from third-party estimation methods). The results reveal that data on direct emissions are more consistent than data on indirect emissions, and they are especially inconsistent for Scope 3. Second, mandatory and voluntary reporting schemes do not substantially improve the consistency of CCP data, which is surprising.Third, third-party estimations are less consistent as compared to data stemming directly from corporate reports; however, the combination of Scopes 1 and 2 third-party estimated data raises consistency levels. On the basis of these results, we conclude the following key implications: academic researchers must be mindful of the consistency of CCP data, because it can significantly affect empirical results, corporate management should avoid situations where different CCP data are communicated externally, investors should engage firms to follow a standardized approach, data providers should increase the transparency about their estimation methods, and policy makers need to be aware of the importance of a sound and standardized methodology to determine CCP. K E Y W O R D Sclimate change, corporate carbon performance, data consistency, estimation method, industrial ecology, third-party provider INTRODUCTIONCorporate carbon performance (CCP) has emerged as a focal point in many domains: accounting and reporting schemes have been developed; a variety of actors in political, academic, and business spheres use these data; and business-related carbon emissions are considered increasingly relevant for investors' market valuation of firms (

No abstract