Climate change disclosures by public sector organisations

Abstract

Global warming and increasingly volatile weather patterns, arguably caused by anthropogenic climate change, is one of the defining challenges facing the world today. It is therefore imperative that organisations proactively respond by not only disclosing the impact of climate change on their operations, but also by describing their initiatives to combat climate change. Against this backdrop, and since public sector organisations utilise public funds, we argue that public sector organisations should not only account to the public about their stewardship of public resources, but are also obliged to explain how they are safeguarding the public by acknowledging and combatting climate change. Our study therefore explores the disclosure of climate related activities from a purposively selected sample of government departments and organisations in South Africa, a country that has been lauded for the quality of corporate governance processes. We developed a climate change disclosure quality (CCDQ) index to assess the climate change disclosures of these public sector organisations. The CCDQ index applied to the most recent publicly available annual/integrated reports of the selected public sector organisations, took six key disclosure elements into account. While our results reveal that the majority of public sector organisations disclose climate related issues, not all do. Moreover, the extent and scope of these disclosures vary significantly. We accordingly recommend that a framework, utilising the disclosure elements described in this paper, be developed which could be applicable to both private and public sector organisations.

Managing Trade‐Offs Between Environmental, Social, Governance and Financial Sustainability in State‐Owned Enterprises: Insights from an Emerging Market

“…2016), it appears that their adoption and reporting of ESG practices is better now compared to some state enterprises, state agencies and parastatals (Imperiale et al. 2023; Zaccone and Pedrini 2020; Ackers and Adebayo 2022; Liu et al. 2022).…”

“…Even though for-profit enterprises were not quick to embrace ESG practices (Mio et al 2016), it appears that their adoption and reporting of ESG practices is better now compared to some state enterprises, state agencies and parastatals (Imperiale et al 2023;Zaccone and Pedrini 2020;Ackers and Adebayo 2022;Liu et al 2022). This appears not to be ideal considering that SOEs ought to be custodians of social issues for the main reason that, in many parts of the world, they are required to deliver public goods and services (Sokol 2009).…”

The nexus between non‐governmental organisations involved in conservation and profit‐seeking state‐owned enterprises: A potential alternative credibility enhancing mechanism for biodiversity disclosures?

“…Since SOEs are owned by the state, on behalf of its citizens, it is submitted that they must act in the best interests of the country as a whole. As organs of the state, SOEs Vision for Biodiversity (Ackers & Adebayo, 2022b;UNEP, 2020). As socioeconomic mechanisms established by their owning states, SOEs should prioritise social objectives in relation to their operations and mandates.…”

“…Since SOEs are owned by the state, on behalf of its citizens, it is submitted that they must act in the best interests of the country as a whole. As organs of the state, SOEs therefore should ensure that their activities do not compromise the environmental commitments of their respective governments in global forums such as the Conference of Parties (COP27) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), or agreements such as the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2015), and the United Nations 2050 Vision for Biodiversity (Ackers & Adebayo, 2022b; UNEP, 2020). As socioeconomic mechanisms established by their owning states, SOEs should prioritise social objectives in relation to their operations and mandates.…”