A longitudinal study of carbon disclosure strategy: evidence from utility, energy and mining industries in the UK

The paper investigates how energy-intensive industries respond to the recent government-led carbon emission schemes through the content analysis of 306 annual and standalone reports of 25 UK listed companies from 2004 to 2012. This period of reporting captures the trend and development of corporate disclosures on carbon emissions after the launch of EU Emissions Trading Schemes (ETS) and Climate Change Act (CCA) 2008. It is found that in corresponding to strategic legitimacy theory, there is an increase in both the quality and quantity of carbon disclosures as a response to these initiatives. However, the change is gradual, which reflects in the achievement of peak disclosure period two years after the launch. It indicates that the new legislations have a lasting impact on the discourses rather than an immediate legitimacy threat from the perspective of institutional legitimacy theory. The results also show that carbon disclosures are an institutionalised practice as companies in the same industries and/or with same carbon trading account status appear to imitate and adopt the industry’s ‘best practice’ disclosure strategy to maintain legitimacy. The trend analysis suggests that the overall disclosure practice is still in its infant stage, especially in the reporting of quantitative and monetary items. The paper contributes to the social and environmental accounting literature by adopting both strategic and institutional view of legitimacy, which explains why carbon disclosures evolve in a specific way to meet the expectation of various stakeholders.

Does stakeholder pressure influence corporate GHG emissions reporting? Empirical evidence from Europe

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to seek to shed light on the practice of incomplete corporate disclosure of quantitative Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and investigates whether external stakeholder pressure influences the existence, and separately, the completeness of voluntary GHG emissions disclosures by 431 European companies. Design/methodology/approach – A classification of reporting completeness is developed with respect to the scope, type and reporting boundary of GHG emissions based on the guidelines of the GHG Protocol, Global Reporting Initiative and the Carbon Disclosure Project. Logistic regression analysis is applied to examine whether proxies for exposure to climate change concerns from different stakeholder groups influence the existence and/or completeness of quantitative GHG emissions disclosure. Findings – From 2005 to 2009, on average only 15 percent of companies that disclose GHG emissions report them in a manner that the authors consider complete. Results of regression analyses suggest that external stakeholder pressure is a determinant of the existence but not the completeness of emissions disclosure. Findings are consistent with stakeholder theory arguments that companies respond to external stakeholder pressure to report GHG emissions, but also with legitimacy theory claims that firms can use carbon disclosure, in this case the incomplete reporting of emissions, as a symbolic act to address legitimacy exposures. Practical implications – Bringing corporate GHG emissions disclosure in line with recommended guidelines will require either more direct stakeholder pressure or, perhaps, a mandated disclosure regime. In the meantime, users of the data will need to carefully consider the relevance of the reported data and develop the necessary competencies to detect and control for its incompleteness. A more troubling concern is that stakeholders may instead grow to accept less than complete disclosure. Originality/value – The paper represents the first large-scale empirical study into the completeness of companies’ disclosure of quantitative GHG emissions and is the first to analyze these disclosures in the context of stakeholder pressure and its relation to legitimation.

Field manual 3-24 and the heritage of counterinsurgency theory

The Counterinsurgency Manual FM 3-24 has been accused of being over-dependent on the counterinsurgency 'classics' Galula and Thompson. But comparison reveals that it is different in spirit. Galula and Thompson seek practical control; the Manual seeks to build 'legitimacy'. Its concept of legitimacy is superficially Weberian, but owes more to the writings of the American Max Manwaring. The Manual presupposes that a rights-based legal order can (other things being equal) be made to be cross-culturally attractive; 'effective governance' by itself can build legitimacy. The fusion of its methods with an ideology creates unrealistic criteria for success. Its weaknesses suggest a level of incapacity to think politically that will, in time, result in further failures.