Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reporting: A Matter of Timing?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Corporate Carbon and Climate Accounting

  • 1611 Accesses

Abstract

Private sector action is perceived to be a major source for climate change mitigation and climate change-related data is a major source of information for the involved stakeholder groups. In this article, I investigate the timing of voluntary greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting and corporate stakeholder orientations. To this end, I analyze corporate participation in the best known voluntary initiative in this context, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) at two points in time. These are at the beginning of the CDP in 2003 and once the initiative is a globally institutionalized practice in 2011. I use multinominal logistic regression analysis and focus on corporations listed in the FTSE Global 500 index between 2003 and 2013 (n = 270). These are classified into corporations that started participating early versus those that started participating late. More than half of the corporations in my sample are categorized as early participants. The results of my analysis show that CDP participation is linked to different stakeholder orientations depending on its timing. In 2003, by participating in the CDP right from its start, corporations satisfy the claims of legislature and civil society. In 2011, by participating in the CDP once the initiative is a globally institutionalized practice, corporations satisfy the claims of investors and final consumers. Empirical research on voluntary GHG reporting examines its factors of influence. However, the timing of voluntary GHG reporting and the related stakeholder orientations are not in the focus of the literature. The present analysis elaborates on these issues and suggests recommendations for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This is a theoretical ideal distinction. In practice, the boundaries between different stakeholder groups, especially between primary and secondary stakeholders, are not always sharp.

  2. 2.

    In theory, a distinction between innovation, i.e. the commercially successful application of a new idea by its developers, and the diffusion of innovations, i.e. the commercially successful application of a new idea beyond its developers, exists. In practice, this differentiation is, however, blurred (Ashford 2002).

  3. 3.

    Thus, there is a misfit between the year of observation (i.e. 2006) and the year of the analysis (i.e. 2003). However, this misfit is accepted in favour of the level of detail reached with this measure for legislative pressure when compared with other possible measures, such as for example Kyob Protocol ratification.

References

  • Aaron JR, McMillan A, Cline BN (2012) Investor reaction to firm environmental management reputation. Corp Reputation Rev 15(4):304–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abercrombie N, Hill S, Turner BS (1984) Dictionary of sociology. Penguin, Harmondsworth

    Google Scholar 

  • Abeysekera I (2013) A template for integrated reporting. J Intell Capital 14(2):227–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrahamson E (1991) Managerial fads and fashions: the diffusion and rejection of innovations. Acad Manage Rev 16(3):586–612

    Google Scholar 

  • Aerts W, Cormier D, Magnan M (2008) Corporate environmental disclosure financial markets and the media: an international perspective. Ecol Econ 64(3):643–659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akerlof GA (1970) The market for “lemons”: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Q J Econ 84(3):488–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Najjar B, Anfimiadou A (2012) Environmental policies and firm value. Bus Strategy Environ 21(1):49–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amran A, Periasamy V, Zulkafli AH (2011) Determinants of climate change disclosure by developed and emerging countries in Asia Pacific. Sustain Dev (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrew J, Cortese CL (2011) Carbon disclosures: comparability, the carbon disclosure project and the greenhouse gas protocol. Australas Account Bus Fin J 5(4):Article 3

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansari SM, Fiss PC, Zajac EJ (2010) Made to fit: how practices vary as they diffuse. Acad Manag Rev 35(1):67–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold PJ (1990) The state and political theory in corporate social disclosure research: a response to Guthrie and Parker. Adv Public Interest Acc 3(2):177–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashford N (2002) Pathways to sustainability: evolution or revolution. In: Greenhuizen MV, Gibson DV, Heitor MV (eds) Innovation and regional development in network society. Purdue University Press, Purdue

    Google Scholar 

  • Bansal P (2005) Evolving sustainably: a longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strateg Manag J 26(3):197–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berthelot S, Robert AM (2011) Climate change disclosures: an examination of Canadian oil and gas firms. Issues Soc Environ Acc 5(1–2):106–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Boesso G, Kumar K (2007) Drivers of corporate voluntary disclosure: a framework and empirical evidence from Italy and the United States. Acc Auditing Accountability J 20(2):269–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman B (1987) All organizations are public. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Brammer S, Pavelin S (2006) Voluntary environmental disclosures by large UK companies. J Bus Fin Acc 33(7/8):1168–1188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brammer S, Pavelin S (2008) Factors influencing the comprehensiveness of corporate environmental disclosure. Bus Strategy Environ 17(2):120–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouhle K, Ramirez-Harrington D (2009) Firm strategy and the Canadian voluntary climate challenge and registry (VCR). Bus Strategy Environ 18(6):360–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouhle K, Ramirez-Harrington D (2010) GHG registries: participation and performance under the Canadian voluntary climate challenge program. Environ Res Econ 47(4):521–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busch T, Hoffmann VH (2011) How hot is your bottom line? Linking carbon and financial performance. Bus Soc 50(2):233–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bushee BJ, Noe CF (2000) Corporate disclosure practices, institutional investors, and stock return volatility. J Accounting Res 38(3):171–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buysse K, Verbeke A (2003) Proactive environmental strategies: a stakeholder management perspective. Strateg Manag J 24(5):453–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carbon Disclosure Project (2013) Sector insights: what is driving climate change action in the world’s largest companies? CDP Global 500 report 2013. CDP, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll GR, Hannan MT (1995) Organizations in industry: strategy structure and selection. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho CH, Patten DM (2007) The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: a research note. Acc Organ Soc 32(7–8):639–647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciocirlan C, Pettersson C (2012) Does workforce diversity matter in the fight against climate change? An analysis of Fortune 500 companies. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 19(1):47–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark CE, Crawford EP (2012) Influencing climate change policy: the effect of shareholder pressure and firm environmental performance. Bus Soc 51(1):148–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson MBE (1995) A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Acad Manag Rev 20(1):92–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson PM, Li Y, Richardson GD, Vasvari FP (2008) Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: an empirical analysis. Acc Organ Soc 33(4–5):303–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cormier D, Gordon IM (2001) An examination of social and environmental reporting strategies. Acc Auditing Accountability J 14(5):587–617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cormier D, Magnan M, van Velthoven B (2005) Environmental disclosure quality in large German companies: economic incentives, public pressures or institutional conditions? Eur Accounting Rev 14(1):3–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cotter J, Najah MM (2012) Institutional investor influence on global climate change disclosure practices. Aust J Manag 37(2):169–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union (2014) New transparency rules on social responsibility for big companies. Available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/intm/141189.pdf. Accessed 5 April 2014

  • Darrell W, Schwartz BN (1997) Environmental disclosures and public policy pressure. J Acc Public Policy 16(2):125–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis GF, Marquis C (2005) Prospects for organization theory in the early twenty-first century: institutional fields and mechanisms. Organ Sci 16(4):332–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins C, Fraas JW (2011) Coming clean: the impact of environmental performance and visibility on corporate climate change disclosure. J Bus Ethics 100(2):303–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan C (2002) Introduction: the legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures—a theoretical foundation. Acc Auditing Accountability J 15(3):282–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan C, Rankin M, Tobin J (2002) An examination of the corporate social and environmental disclosures of BHP from 1983 to 1997. A test of legitimacy theory. Acc Auditing Accountability J 15:312–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmas M (2002) The diffusion of environmental management standards in Europe and the United States: an institutional perspective. Policy Sci 35(1):91–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmas M, Toffel MW (2004) Stakeholders and environmental management practices: an institutional framework. Bus Strategy Environ 13(4):209–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond DW (1985) Optimal release of information by firms. J Fin 40(4):1071–1094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dill WR (1958) Environment as an influence on managerial autonomy. Adm Sci Q 2(4):409–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW (1983) The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am Sociol Rev 2:147–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowling J, Pfeffer J (1975) Organizational legitimacy: social values and organizational behavior. Pac Sociol Rev 18(1):122–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap RE, van Liere KD (1978) The ‘new environmental paradigm’ a proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. J Environ Educ 9(1):10–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2011) A renewed EU strategy 2011–2014 for corporate social responsibility. Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0681:FIN:EN:PDF. Accessed 28 Feb 2014

  • European Community (2009) Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 amending directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme of the Community. Official J Eur Union L:140/63

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman M, Jaggi B (2005) Global warming commitment to the kyoto protocol and accounting disclosures by the largest global public firms from polluting industries. Int J Acc 40(3):215–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman RE (1994) Ethical theory and business. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Frooman J (1999) Stakeholder influence strategies. Acad Manag Rev 24(2):191–205

    Google Scholar 

  • Frost GR (2007) The introduction of mandatory environmental reporting guidelines: Australian evidence. Abacus 43(2):190–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funk K (2003) Sustainability and performance. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 44(2):65–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallego-Álvarez I, Rodríguez-Domínguez L, García-Sánchez IM (2011) Study of some explanatory factors in the opportunities arising from climate change. J Clean Prod 19(9–10):912–926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Germanwatch (2006) The climate change performance index. A comparison of the top 53 CO2 emitting nations. Germanwatch, Bonn & Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Germanwatch, Climate Action Network (2013) The climate change performance index. Results 2013. Germanwatch and Climate Action Network, Bonn, Berlin and Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Germanwatch, Climate Action Network (2014) The climate change performance index. Results 2014. Germanwatch and Climate Action Network, Bonn, Berlin and Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • González-Benito O, González-Benito J (2008) Implications of market orientation on the environmental transformation of industrial firms. Ecol Econ 64(4):752–762

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray R, Kouhy R, Lavers S (1995) Corporate social and environmental reporting: a review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Acc Auditing Accountability J 8(2):47–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood R, Hinings CR (1996) Understanding radical organizational change: bringing together the Old and the new institutionalism. Acad Manag Rev 21:1022–1054

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair J, Anderson R, Tatham R, Black W (1998) Multivariate data analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall P, Soskice D (2001) An introduction to varieties of capitalism. In: Hall P, Soskice D (eds) Varieties of capitalism: the institutional foundation of comparative advantage. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Han JK, Kim M, Srivastava RK (1998) Market orientation and organizational performance: is innovation a missing link? J Mark 62(4):30–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart SL, Sharma S (2004) Engaging fringe stakeholders for competitive imagination. Acad Manag Executive 18(1):7–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henriques I, Sadorsky P (1996) The determinants of an environmentally responsive firm: an empirical approach. J Environ Econ Manag 30(3):381–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hesse A (2006) Climate and corporations—right answers to wrong questions? Carbon disclosure project data—validation, analysis, improvements. Germanwatch, Bonn/Berlin. Available at http://germanwatch.org/rio/cdp-ah06.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2013

  • Higgott RA, Underhill GRD, Bieler A (2000) Non-state actors and authority in the global system. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hilgartner S, Bosk CL (1988) The rise and fall of social problems: a public arena model. Am J Sociol 94(1):53–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hocking RWD, Power S (1993) Environmental performance: quality measurement and improvement. Bus Strategy Environ 2(4):19–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman AJ (1999) Institutional evolution and change: environmentalism and the US chemical industry. Acad Manag J 42(4):351–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman AJ (2007) Regulation: if you’re not at the table you’re on the menu. Harvard Bus Rev 85(10):8–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilinitch AY, Soderstrom NS, Thomas TE (1998) Measuring corporate environmental performance. J Acc Public Policy 17(4–5):383–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1990) Working group one: scientific assessment of climate change. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2013) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs D (1974) Dependency and vulnerability: an exchange approach to the control of organizations. Adm Sci Q 19(1):45–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings PD, Zandbergen PA (1995) Ecologically sustainable organizations: an institutional approach. Acad Manag Rev 20(4):1015–1052

    Google Scholar 

  • Jira CF, Toffel MW (2013) Engaging supply chains in climate change. Manuf Service Oper Manag 15(4):559–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassinis GI, Soteriou AC (2003) Greening the service profit chain: the impact of environmental management practices. Prod Oper Manag 12(3):386–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keele DM, DeHart S (2011) Partners of US EPA climate leaders: an event study on stock performance. Bus Strategy Environ 20(8):485–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim EH, Lyon T (2011a) When does institutional investor activism increase shareholder value? The Carbon disclosure project. BE J Econ Anal Policy 11(1):Article 50

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim EH, Lyon T (2011b) Strategic environmental disclosure: evidence from the DOE’s voluntary greenhouse gas registry. J Environ Econ Manag 61(3):311–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk A, Levy D, Pinkse J (2008) Corporate responses in an emerging climate regime: the institutionalization and commensuration of carbon disclosure. Eur Accounting Rev 17(4):719–745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang M, Lundholm RJ (1993) Cross-sectional determinants of analyst ratings of corporate disclosures. J Accounting Res 31(2):246–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence PR, Lorsch JW (1967) Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Adm Sci Q 12(1):1–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee S (2012) Corporate carbon strategies in responding to climate change. Bus Strategy Environ 21(1):33–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy DD, Rothenberg S (2002) Heterogeneity and change in environmental strategy: technological and political responses to climate change in the global automobile industry. In: Hoffman AJ, Ventresca MJ (eds) Organizations policy and the natural environment: institutional and strategic perspectives. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom CK (1994) The implications of organizational legitimacy for corporate social performance and disclosure. Presented at the critical perspectives on accounting conference, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo L, Lan YC, Tang Q (2012) Corporate incentives to disclose carbon information: evidence from the CDP global 500 report. J Int Fin Manag Acc 23(2):93–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majumdar SK, Marcus AA (2001) Rules versus discretion: the productivity consequences of flexible regulation. Acad Manag J 44(1):170–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matisoff DC, Noonan DS, O’Brien JJ (2013) Convergence in environmental reporting: assessing the carbon disclosure project. Bus Strategy Environ 22(5):285–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meadows DL, Meadows DH, Randers J, Behrens WW III (1972) The limits to growth. A report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. Signet Book, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer JW, Rowan B (1977) Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. Am J Sociol 83(2):340–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad Manag Rev 22(4):853–886

    Google Scholar 

  • Moneva JM, Llena F (2000) Environmental disclosures in the annual reports of large companies in Spain. Eur Acc Rev 9(1):7–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon SG (2008) Corporate environmental behaviors in voluntary programs: does timing matter? Soc Sci Q 89(5):1102–1120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munilla LS, Miles MP (2005) The corporate social responsibility continuum as a component of stakeholder theory. Bus Soc Rev 110(4):371–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mustata RV, Matis D, Bonaci CG (2012) Integrated financial reporting: from international experiences to perspectives at national level. Rev Bus Res 12(2):145–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Nikolaeva R, Bicho M (2011) The role of institutional and reputational factors in the voluntary adoption of corporate social responsibility reporting standards. J Acad Mark Sci 39(1):136–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer B (2002) Managerial perceptions of corporate social disclosure: an Irish story. Acc Auditing Accountability J 15(3):406–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patten DM (1992) Intra-industry environmental disclosures in response to the Alaskan oil spill: a note on legitimacy theory. Acc Organ Soc 17(5):471–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patten DM (2002) The relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: a research note. Acc Organ Soc 27(8):763–773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer J, Salancik GR (1978) The external control of organisations: a resource dependence approach. Harper & Row Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter ME, Reinhardt FL (2007) A strategic approach to climate. Harvard Bus Rev 85:1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell WW, DiMaggio PJ (1991) The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Prado-Lorenzo JM, García-Sánchez IM (2010) The role of the board of directors in disseminating relevant information on greenhouse gases. J Bus Ethics 97(3):391–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prado-Lorenzo JM, Rodríguez-Domínguez L, Gallego-Álvarez I, García-Sánchez IM (2009) Factors influencing the disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions in companies world-wide. Manag Decis 47(7):1133–1157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rankin M, Windsor C, Wahyuni D (2011) An investigation of voluntary corporate greenhouse gas emissions reporting in a market governance system: Australian evidence. Acc Auditing Accountability J 24(8):1037–1070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid EM, Toffel MW (2009) Responding to public and private politics: corporate disclosure of climate change strategies. Strateg Manag J 30(11):1157–1178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rockstroem J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson A, Chapin FS III, Lambin EF, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B, de Wit CA, Hughes T, van der Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Soerlin S, Snyder PK, Costanza R, Svedin U, Falkenmark M, Karlberg L, Corell RW, Fabry VJ, Hansen J, Walker B, Liverman D, Richardson K, Crutzen P, Foley JA (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461(7263):472–475

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rueda-Manzanares A, Aragón-Correa JA, Sharma S (2008) The influence of stakeholders on the environmental strategy of service firms: the moderating effects of complexity, uncertainty and munificence. Br J Manag 19(2):185–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rugman AM, Verbeke A (1998) Corporate strategy and international environmental policy. J Int Bus Stud 29(4):819–833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rugman AM, Kirton J, Soloway J (1997) Canadian corporate strategy in a North American region. Am Rev Can Stud 27(2):199–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott WR (2001) Institutions and organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (2010) Commission guidance regarding disclosure related to climate change federal register. SEC Guidance 75(25):6290–6297

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma S, Henriques I (2005) Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest products industry. Strateg Manag J 26(2):159–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singleton-Green B (2010) Commentary: is the reporting model broken? Aus Acc Rev 20(4):409–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skjærseth JB, Skodvin T (2001) Climate change and the oil industry: common problems different strategies. Global Environ Politics 1(4):43–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence AM (1973) Job market signaling. Q J Econ 87(3):355–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sprengel DC, Busch T (2011) Stakeholder engagement and environmental strategy—the case of climate change. Bus Strategy Environ 20(6):351–364

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanny E (2013) Voluntary disclosures of emissions by US firms. Bus Strategy Environ 22(3):145–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanny E, Ely K (2008) Corporate environmental disclosures about the effects of climate change. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 15(6):338–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starik M, Rands GP (1995) Weaving an integrated web: mulitilevel and multisystem perspectives of ecological sustainable organizations. Acad Manag Rev 20(4):908–935

    Google Scholar 

  • Strang D, Macy MW (2001) In search of excellence: fads, success stories, and adaptive emulation1. Am J Sociol 107(1):147–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tempel A, Walgenbach P (2007) Global standardization of organizational forms and management practices? What new institutionalism and the business-systems approach can learn from each other. J Manage Stud 44(1):1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terlaak A, Gong Y (2008) Vicarious learning and inferential accuracy in adoption processes. Acad Manag Rev 33(4):846–868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolbert PS, Zucker LG (1983) Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: the diffusion of civil service reform, 1880–1935. Adm Sci Q 28(1):22–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (1997) The kyoto protocol. United Nations, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Verrecchia RE (1983) Discretionary disclosure. J Acc Econ 5:179–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verrecchia RE (2001) Essays on disclosure. J Acc Econ 32(1–3):97–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber O, Scholz RW, Michalik G (2010) Incorporating sustainability criteria into credit risk management. Bus Strategy Environ 19(1):S39–S50

    Google Scholar 

  • Welch EW, Mazur A, Bretschneider S (2000) Voluntary behavior by electric utilities: levels of adoption and contribution of the climate challenge program to the reduction of carbon dioxide. J Policy Anal Manag 19(3):407–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitley R (1999) Divergent capitalisms: the social structuring and change of business systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe RA (1994) Organizational innovation: review, critique and suggested research directions. J Manage Stud 31(3):405–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yalabik B, Fairchild RJ (2012) Customer regulatory and competitive pressure as drivers of environmental innovation. Int J Prod Econ 131(2):519–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler A, Busch T, Hoffmann VH (2011) Disclosed corporate responses to climate change and stock performance: an international empirical analysis. Energy Econ 33(6):1283–1294

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technische Universitaet Dresden, Dresden, Germany

    Nele Glienke

Authors
  1. Nele Glienke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nele Glienke .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Sustainability Management, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany

    Stefan Schaltegger

  2. Friedrich-Alexander University, Nürnberg, Bayern, Germany

    Dimitar Zvezdov

  3. University of Basque Country, San Sebastian, Spain

    Igor Alvarez Etxeberria

  4. Corvinus University of Budapest, Budapest, Hungary

    Maria Csutora

  5. TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany

    Edeltraud Günther

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Glienke, N. (2015). Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reporting: A Matter of Timing?. In: Schaltegger, S., Zvezdov, D., Alvarez Etxeberria, I., Csutora, M., Günther, E. (eds) Corporate Carbon and Climate Accounting. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27718-9_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation