Abstract:To prevent adverse effects from climate change, it is vital to involve the private sector in mitigation efforts. So far, however, research has insufficiently addressed the determinants of corporate action in specific industries. Our paper aims at bridging this gap by empirically analyzing the global automotive industry's response to climate change mitigation issues. We use publicly available information from 105 sector leaders to investigate the role of external institutional pressures and intra-organizational… Show more
“…Those involved in third party assurance typically described it in terms of enhancing external credibility: Assurance helps try and combat the stakeholders' opinion that the firm is trying to greenwash (Consultant B, Interview 1).However, with remuneration increasingly tied to emission targets, assurance was also understood by informants as part of normal internal audit and corporate control processes. Arguably, this normalization of auditing emissions weakens the pressure that can be exerted by external stakeholders to change behaviour (Sullivan and Gouldson, ).…”
Section: Impacts Of Reporting On Business Process and Internal Organimentioning
As part of their annual directors' report, UK‐listed companies are now required to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and account publicly for their contributions to climate change. This paper uses this mandatory carbon reporting to explore wider debates about corporate social responsibility and the purpose, practice, and impacts of such non‐financial reporting. Empirically, it combines documentary analysis of the carbon reporting practices of 176 large firms listed in the FTSE100 and/or subject to the UK government's adaptation reporting power with 60 interviews with stakeholders involved in carbon reporting. Firms disclose their emissions in response to financial incentives, social pressure and/or regulatory compulsion. In turn, rationales shape whether and how carbon reporting influences internal business processes and performance. The importance of reporting to the bottom line varies by sector depending on two variables – energy intensity and economic regulator status – yet there is limited evidence that carbon reporting is driving substantial reductions in emissions. Findings suggest reasons for caution about hopes for ‘nudging’ firms to improve their environmental performance and social responsibility through disclosure requirements.
“…Those involved in third party assurance typically described it in terms of enhancing external credibility: Assurance helps try and combat the stakeholders' opinion that the firm is trying to greenwash (Consultant B, Interview 1).However, with remuneration increasingly tied to emission targets, assurance was also understood by informants as part of normal internal audit and corporate control processes. Arguably, this normalization of auditing emissions weakens the pressure that can be exerted by external stakeholders to change behaviour (Sullivan and Gouldson, ).…”
Section: Impacts Of Reporting On Business Process and Internal Organimentioning
As part of their annual directors' report, UK‐listed companies are now required to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and account publicly for their contributions to climate change. This paper uses this mandatory carbon reporting to explore wider debates about corporate social responsibility and the purpose, practice, and impacts of such non‐financial reporting. Empirically, it combines documentary analysis of the carbon reporting practices of 176 large firms listed in the FTSE100 and/or subject to the UK government's adaptation reporting power with 60 interviews with stakeholders involved in carbon reporting. Firms disclose their emissions in response to financial incentives, social pressure and/or regulatory compulsion. In turn, rationales shape whether and how carbon reporting influences internal business processes and performance. The importance of reporting to the bottom line varies by sector depending on two variables – energy intensity and economic regulator status – yet there is limited evidence that carbon reporting is driving substantial reductions in emissions. Findings suggest reasons for caution about hopes for ‘nudging’ firms to improve their environmental performance and social responsibility through disclosure requirements.
“…There are several drivers and determinants of corporate carbon management: regional affiliations [5], company size [5,10,36], absolute amount of CO 2 emissions [5], industries across different sectors [11], energy prices [12], stakeholder pressures [1,13], governmental pressures through regulations [37], competitors' performance in carbon management [10] and the role of top management [38].…”
Section: Strategic Approaches To Carbon Managementmentioning
Abstract:In response to the domestic emission trading scheme, Korean companies are required to shift their strategies from voluntary or regulation-driven management approaches to innovative carbon management utilizing their carbon option linked with economic value. Using a questionnaire survey targeting companies subjected to the emission trading scheme, this study explores the status of Korean companies' carbon management in a series of five strategies and identifies the correlation between companies' proactive carbon strategies and pre-listed determinant factors. This study found that Korean companies' practices in accordance with carbon pricing deviate little from conventional energy and environmental management in this phase. They are likely to be affected by the need to appear socially responsible or to make a social contribution, without having to exceed this mandate in terms activities outside of this remit. Yet, only a small proportion of companies have advanced to the stage of proactive carbon management. For them, top managers' support and understanding are essential factors together with government pressure to factor-in issues related to carbon with their business strategies. This study provides implications for policy and corporate in promoting carbon-oriented management under the carbon policy.
“…Commitment from small and medium‐sized organisations is needed to adequately address climate change (Battisti & Perry, ), particularly as public demand for such commitment increases (Sullivan & Gouldson, ). Our findings align with those made by Juhola (), who established that private sector organisations are mostly involved in activities to reduce risk and vulnerability rather than to seek information about adaptation.…”
Innovative and effective responses to climate change require that we move beyond reliance on government to include organisations spanning different sectors, such as not‐for‐profit, private, and community groups. Interactions among these organisations in collaborative networks—or “forums”—may provide important mechanisms to successfully address climate change impacts. This paper investigates the relationships between organisational participation and involvement in forums and responses to climate change. Survey data show that people from many organisations are participating in forums and using these meeting points to discuss climate change, even when forums are intended to serve other purposes. The data suggest that participation in any type of forum is related to organisational responses to climate change. Attributes such as type of organisation and knowledge of climate change issues were also found to be related to organisational responses to climate change but these became less important when climate change was discussed in forums. The results of the research suggest that a practical way to increase the volume and variety of organisational responses to climate change may be to encourage participation in forums and/or to influence existing networks to incorporate more discussions of climate change issues.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
