Enhancement and obfuscation through the use of graphs in sustainability reports: An international comparison

‘This article is (c) Emerald Group Publishing and permission has been granted for this version to appear here https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/ Emerald does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission from Emerald Group Publishing Limited.'Purpose – In this study we investigate the use of graphs in corporate sustainability reports and attempt to determine, first, whether the use of graphs appears to be associated with attempts at impression management, and second, whether differences across three levels of reporting regulatory structure (Leuz, Nanda and Wysocki, 2003) are associated with differences in the level of impression management. Design/methodology/approach - Based on a sample of 120 sustainability reports issued by firms from six different countries, we empirically test for differences in presentation of favorable as opposed to unfavorable items (enhancement) and for differences in the direction of materially distorted graphs (obfuscation). Findings - For the overall sample we find substantial evidence of both enhancement and obfuscation in the graph displays. We also find more limited evidence that impression management differs across companies facing different regulatory structures. Research limitations/implications – We investigate graph use for only one year’s reports and for a sample of large companies from only six different countries. Further, our enhancement findings are not evidence that the companies are necessarily providing misleading information. However, our results show that the way information is being provided in corporate sustainability reports appears to be manipulated by the firms to enhance a positive image and to obfuscate negative trends. The reports may thus be less about increasing corporate accountability across the social and environmental domains than about managing impressions. Hence, it may be beneficial for advocate organizations such as the Global Reporting Initiative to provide additional guidance on “how” information gets portrayed in sustainability reports. Originality/value – Our study expands prior research into corporate manipulation of graphs to the domain of sustainability reporting and adds further evidence that the reporting needs to be carefully assessed

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

Climate change and asset prices: are corporate carbon disclosure and performance priced appropriately?

This paper empirically assesses the value relevance of information on corporate climate change disclosure and performance to asset prices, and discusses whether this information is priced appropriately. Findings indicate that corporate disclosures of quantitative GHG emissions and, to a lesser extent, carbon performance are value relevant. We use hand-collected information on quantitative greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for 433 European companies and build portfolios based on GHG disclosure and performance. We regress portfolios on Carhart (1997) four factor models extended for industry effects over the years 2005 to 2009. Results show that investors achieved abnormal risk-adjusted returns of up to 13.05% annually by exploiting inefficiently priced positive effects of (complete) GHG emissions disclosure and good corporate climate change performance in terms of GHG efficiency. Results imply that, firstly, information costs involved in carbon disclosure and management do not present a burden on corporate financial resources. Secondly, investors should not neglect carbon disclosure and performance when making investment decisions. Thirdly, during the period analysed financial markets were inefficient in pricing publicly available information on carbon disclosure and performance. Mandatory and standardised information on carbon performance would consequently not only increase market efficiency but result in better allocation of capital within the real economy

CSR disclosure: The more things change…?

This article is (c) Emerald Group Publishing and permission has been granted for this version to appear here https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/ Emerald does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission from Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Purpose: Corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure is receiving increased attention from the mainstream accounting research community. In general, this recently published research has failed to engage significantly with prior CSR-themed studies. The purpose of this paper is threefold. First, it examines whether more recent CSR reporting differs from that of the 1970s. Second, it investigates whether one of the major findings of prior CSR research - that disclosure appears to be largely a function of exposure to legitimacy factors - continues to hold in more recent reporting. Third, it examines whether, as argued within the more recent CSR-themed studies, disclosure is valued by market participants.ESSEC Business School’s Research Center (CERESSEC)University of Padov

Corporate anti-corruption disclosure : An examination of the impact of media exposure and country-level press freedom

Peer reviewedPostprin

Mandated Social Disclosure : An Analysis of the Response to the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010

Peer reviewedPostprin

CSR disclosure in response to major airline accidents: a legitimacy-based exploration

PURPOSE. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the literature investigating disclosure reactions to legitimacy threats by analyzing the corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure reactions to catastrophic accidents suffered by major airlines. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH. The authors use content analysis to examine changes in annual report disclosure in response to four separate airline disasters. The authors adopt two classification schemes and two measurement approaches to explore these changes. FINDINGS. The authors find that for three events the organizations appear to have responded with considerable increases in CSR disclosure that are consistent with attempts of legitimation. For one of the events examined, the authors find no disclosure response and suggest that this could be due to the company’s unwillingness to accept responsibility. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS. The study’s focus on major airlines that have suffered an accident with available annual reports in English meant that other companies had to be excluded from the analysis. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS. The findings demonstrate the use of the annual report as a legitimation tool and further highlight the need for greater transparency and comparability across publications. ORIGINALITY/VALUE. The paper adds to the scarce literature examining corporate disclosure reactions following threats to their social legitimacy

Erratum to: Methods for evaluating medical tests and biomarkers

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s41512-016-0001-y.]