This study investigates whether stakeholder pressure directly intensifies the extent of eco-control systems' use, and thus indirectly affects economic and environmental performance. Crosssectional data was collected from 93 UK manufacturers belonging to industries of high pollution propensity, and analysed using structural equation modelling. This study provides a broader understanding of environmental management control systems (EMCS) development, responds to calls in the literature for extending prior empirical research to both the antecedents and consequences of EMCS, and offers further evidence from the UK context (one of the leading countries in tackling environmental-related issues). Our findings reveal that the pressure from organisational stakeholders is significantly and positively associated with all eco-control systems' constructs. Interestingly, our findings indicate a lack of significant indirect relations between stakeholder pressure groups and firms' performance (economic or environmental), and only ecocontrol incentives influence UK firms' environmental performance.

No abstract

Purpose This paper aims to investigate various institutional pressures driving the adoption and implementation of a new risk management system; enterprise risk management (ERM). Design/methodology/approach The implementation of ERM-related practices is analysed based on an institutional framework and drawing on empirical evidence from multiple sources in ten large/medium-sized insurance companies. This paper focuses on extra-organisational pressures exerted by political, social and economic institutions on insurance companies which drove the adoption decision. Findings It was found that different change agents have taken part in the decision to introduce new risk management system as a part of ERM implementation process. Further, the institutional pressures, coercive, mimetic and normative, were found to differ in character and strength over different intervals of time in relation to the adoption of ERM. Companies that adopted ERM early were mostly driven by internal strategic drivers, whereas the recent adoption decision was more driven by coercive and mimetic pressures. Thus, evidence of divergence between insurance companies was found. Research limitations/implications The findings have implications for policy makers, regulatory agencies and innovation developers. ERM was considered not only as a necessity but also as a value added to the insurance companies under study. Thus, regulators and innovation developers should survey main players in any specific organisational field to understand their views before issuing new compulsory regulations or developing innovations. They also need to consider exploring companies’ experiences with ERM, which can provide a basis for the development of strengthened and more informative regulatory ERM frameworks. This will support a faster and easier understanding and implementation of ERM framework hindered by the confusions companies may face when considering the complicated/changing regulatory and risk requirements. Originality/value This study extends the scope of institutional analysis to the risk management field, particularly ERM and to the explanation of how different institutions affect the decision to move towards ERM and modify the risk management rules applied within the organisational environment. It looks not only at convergences but also divergences associated with the period of time when ERM adoption decision was made. Thus, it develops a processual view of change.

PurposeWith the growing attention around carbon emissions disclosure, the demand for external carbon assurance on emissions reports has been increasing by stakeholders as it provides additional credibility and confidence. This study investigates the association between the higher level of external carbon assurance and improvement in a firm's carbon emissions. It provides an understanding of corporate incentives for obtaining a higher level of carbon assurance, particularly in relation to carbon performance enhancements.Design/methodology/approachData are collected from 170 US companies for the period 2012–2017 and are analysed using a change analysis. Generalised method of moment (GMM) is used to address endogeneity.FindingsFollowing the rationales taken by legitimacy and “outside-in” management views, the findings reveal that a higher level of carbon assurance (i.e. reasonable assurance) marginally improves firms' carbon performance (i.e. reported carbon emissions). This is consistent with “outside-in” management view suggesting that a higher level of assurance could be utilised as a tool for accessing more information about stakeholders' needs and concerns, which can be useful in enhancing carbon performance.Research limitations/implicationsThe findings are generalisable to US firms and may not extend to other contexts.Practical implicationsThe implication of this study for companies is that a high level of sustainability assurance is a useful tool to access detailed information about stakeholder concerns, of which internalisation can help to marginally improve carbon performance. For policymakers, the insights into and enhanced understanding of the incentives for obtaining carbon assurance can help policymakers to develop effective policies and initiatives for carbon assurance. Considering the possible improvements in carbon performance when obtaining a high level of sustainability verification, governments need to consider mandating carbon assurance.Originality/valueThis study extends the existing studies of assurance in sustainability context as well as in carbon context by explaining why companies voluntarily get expensive external verification (i.e. higher level of assurance) of their carbon emissions disclosure. This study responds to calls in the literature for empirical research investigating the association between environmental performance and external assurance with a focus on level of assurance.HighlightsA higher level of carbon assurance Marginally improves firms' carbon performance.Corporate incentives to obtain higher level of carbon assurance is beyond seeking legitimacy.Higher level of assurance is a useful tool for accessing more information about stakeholders' concerns.Consistent with “ouside-in”management view, companies internalise stakeholders' concerns to marginally improve performance.

There has been a continuous and controversial debate about the relationship between carbon performance, carbon disclosure, and economic performance. This study investigates whether corporate economic performance is influenced by carbon performance and disclosure and whether carbon (media) legitimacy mediates such relationships. This study provides a broader understanding of the relationship between carbon performance, disclosure, and economic performance by investigating the mediating role of carbon (media) legitimacy, and offers further evidence from the UK context. Based on a balanced panel data of 95 UK firms between 2009 and 2014 (amounting to 475 observations in total) and using path analysis, we find that improving the company’s carbon performance is not financed by shareholders, and carbon (media) legitimacy as an intangible asset enhances the economic performance of the firm. We also find that while carbon disclosure does not directly improve economic performance, it indirectly does so via carbon (media) legitimacy. Finally, the results show while carbon performance is not reflected in carbon (media) legitimacy, carbon disclosure as a legitimizing tool strongly enhances carbon (media) legitimacy. Overall, our results suggest that voluntary carbon disclosure, regardless of the firm’s underlying carbon performance, is an effective tool to manage corporate (media) legitimacy, and subsequently improve economic performance. Thus, voluntary carbon disclosure in the UK may hinder future improvements in a firm’s carbon performance.