Sensory Communication

Contains table of contents for Section 2, an introduction and reports on twelve research projects.National Institutes of Health Grant 5 R01 DC00117National Institutes of Health Contract 2 P01 DC00361National Institutes of Health Grant 5 R01 DC00126National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC00270U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research Contract AFOSR-90-0200National Institutes of Health Grant R29-DC00625U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-88-K-0604U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-91-J-1454U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-92-J-1814U.S. Navy - Naval Training Systems Center Contract N61339-93-M-1213U.S. Navy - Naval Training Systems Center Contract N61339-93-C-0055U.S. Navy - Naval Training Systems Center Contract N61339-93-C-0083U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-92-J-4005U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-93-1-119

Sensory Communication

Contains table of contents for Section 2 and reports on five research projects.National Institutes of Health Contract 2 R01 DC00117National Institutes of Health Contract 1 R01 DC02032National Institutes of Health Contract 2 P01 DC00361National Institutes of Health Contract N01 DC22402National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC001001National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC00270National Institutes of Health Grant 5 R01 DC00126National Institutes of Health Grant R29-DC00625U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-88-K-0604U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-91-J-1454U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-92-J-1814U.S. Navy - Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division Contract N61339-94-C-0087U.S. Navy - Naval Air Warfare Center Training System Division Contract N61339-93-C-0055U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-93-1-1198National Aeronautics and Space Administration/Ames Research Center Grant NCC 2-77

Sensory Communication

Contains table of contents for Section 2, an introduction and reports on fifteen research projects.National Institutes of Health Grant RO1 DC00117National Institutes of Health Grant RO1 DC02032National Institutes of Health Contract P01-DC00361National Institutes of Health Contract N01-DC22402National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Grant 2 R01 DC00126National Institutes of Health Grant 2 R01 DC00270National Institutes of Health Contract N01 DC-5-2107National Institutes of Health Grant 2 R01 DC00100U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research/Naval Air Warfare Center Contract N61339-94-C-0087U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research/Naval Air Warfare Center Contract N61339-95-K-0014U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research/Naval Air Warfare Center Grant N00014-93-1-1399U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research/Naval Air Warfare Center Grant N00014-94-1-1079U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Subcontract 40167U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-92-J-1814National Institutes of Health Grant R01-NS33778U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-88-K-0604National Aeronautics and Space Administration Grant NCC 2-771U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research Grant F49620-94-1-0236U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research Agreement with Brandeis Universit

Corporate carbon performance data: Quo vadis?

Corporate carbon performance (CCP) has become a central topic in political, financial, and academic domains. At the same time, several characteristics of CCP data, including comparability and consistency, remain unresolved. The literature has extensively covered issues regarding the comparability of CCP data from a firm-internal perspective. However, it has not yet examined the consistency of CCP data between third-party data providers. This article investigates the degree of CCP data consistency between third-party providers according to three dimensions: scope (i.e., direct and indirect emissions), scheme (i.e., mandatory and voluntary reporting schemes), and source (i.e., data stemming from corporate reports and from third-party estimation methods). The results reveal that data on direct emissions are more consistent than data on indirect emissions, and they are especially inconsistent for Scope 3. Second, mandatory and voluntary reporting schemes do not substantially improve the consistency of CCP data, which is surprising. Third, third-party estimations are less consistent as compared to data stemming directly from corporate reports; however, the combination of Scopes 1 and 2 third-party estimated data raises consistency levels. On the basis of these results, we conclude the following key implications: academic researchers must be mindful of the consistency of CCP data, because it can significantly affect empirical results, corporate management should avoid situations where different CCP data are communicated externally, investors should engage firms to follow a standardized approach, data providers should increase the transparency about their estimation methods, and policy makers need to be aware of the importance of a sound and standardized methodology to determine CCP

Under Pressure? The Link Between Mandatory Climate Reporting and Firms' Carbon Performance

We examine whether and how mandatory climate reporting leads to changes in firms' carbon emissions. Drawing on legitimacy theory and using a difference-in-differences design, we assess the effect of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), introduced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2010, on the carbon performance defined as carbon intensity and absolute carbon emissions of affected firms. We find that firms affected by the GHGRP improve their carbon intensity significantly more than unaffected firms after the introduction of the GHGRP, but not their absolute carbon emissions. The results are robust to changes in the difference-in-differences design. Overall, our study contributes to research on mandatory climate reporting by assessing the GHGRP's suitability to generate a real sustainable change in firms' operations and reduce their negative impact on our climate