Driven by a scarcity of literature on the issue, this study investigates corporate incentives for external carbon emissions assurance. Our sample comprises 5,184 firm-year observations across 44 countries between 2010 and 2014. The descriptive result suggests that 66 percent of the sample firms received assurance and the number of firms that adopted carbon assurance increased during the period investigated. We find that firms exposed to higher carbon risks are more likely to voluntarily seek carbon assurance. Moreover, firms that had adopted carbon reduction initiatives, with an environmental committee, with carbon reduction incentives, or with higher carbon disclosure scores tend to obtain assurance. Our study is based on a number of corporate social responsibility theories; namely, legitimacy, signaling, information asymmetry, and institutional theory. This study contributes to the literature by empirically testing the validity and applicability of these theories in the emerging field of nonfinancial assurance services. JEL Classifications: M42; Q54; Q56.

Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of legitimacy threats on corporate incentive to obtain external carbon assurance. Design/methodology/approach The sample consists of the largest US companies that disclosed carbon emissions to CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project) over the period 2010-2013. Based on legitimacy theory, firms are more likely to obtain carbon assurance when they are under greater legitimacy threat. Carbon assurance is measured using CDP data. Three proxies are identified to measure legitimacy threat related to climate change: carbon emissions intensity, firm size and leverage. Findings This paper finds that firms with higher levels of emissions are more likely to obtain independent assurance, and large firms show the same tendency, as they are probably under pressure from their large group of stakeholders. In sum, the findings suggest that firms with higher carbon emissions face greater threats to their legitimacy, and the adoption of carbon assurance can mitigate risks to legitimacy with enhanced credibility of carbon disclosure in stakeholders’ decision-making. Research limitations/implications The study has some limitations. The authors have relied on CDP reports for analysis and focus on the largest companies in the US. Caution should be exercised when generalising the results to smaller firms, other countries or voluntary carbon assurance information disclosed in other communications channels. Practical implications This study provides extra insights into and an improved understanding of determinants and motivation of carbon assurance, which should be useful for policymakers to develop policies and initiatives for carbon assurance. The collective results should be useful for practicing accountants and accounting firms. Originality/value The paper investigates how legitimacy threats affect firms’ choice of external carbon assurance in the context of US, which has not been documented previously. It contributes to the understanding of legitimacy theory in the context of voluntary carbon assurance.

This study investigates corporate incentives for the choice of assurance providers of accounting firms versus nonaccounting firms. Based on an international sample of 3,635 firm-year observations for the period of 2010-2014, we find that firms subject to greater legitimacy and stakeholder pressure (e.g., those with higher carbon emissions in countries with stringent climate protection and stakeholder-orientation) are more likely to choose accounting firms as their assurance provider. We also find supporting evidence that firms with a desire to improve carbon management mechanisms (e.g., firms that adopt carbon reduction incentives with higher carbon transparency) show a tendency to choose consulting firms specializing in climate change management. The overall findings suggest that the choice of assurance provider is a strategic decision, which aligns with a firm's overall corporate social responsibility goal. Our results should help practitioners, managers, and regulators understand the emerging audit practice and market.

Purpose This study aims to examine whether good carbon performers disclose more carbon information overall than poor performers, and if yes, how firms select different types of carbon information to signal their genuine superior carbon performance. Design/methodology/approach The level of disclosure is measured based on content analysis of Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) reports. The study sample consists of 487 US companies that voluntarily participated in the CDP survey from 2011 to 2012. The authors use the t-test and multiple regression models for analyses. Findings The results consistently indicate that firms with better carbon performance disclose a greater amount of overall carbon information, supporting the signalling theory. In addition, in contrast to previous studies that merely consider the overall disclosure level, the authors also investigate disclosure of each major aspect of carbon activities. The results show that good carbon performers disclose more key carbon items, such as goods and services that avoid greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, external verification and carbon accounting, to signal their true type. Research limitations/implications This study has some limitations. The authors rely on CDP reports for analysis and focus on the largest companies in the USA. Caution should be exercised when generalising the results to other countries, smaller firms or voluntary carbon information disclosed in other communications channels. Practical implications Because carbon disclosure has already been moving from a voluntary to mandatory requirement in many jurisdictions, the format and content of CDP reports might be considered for a formal standalone GHG statement. Based on the results, the authors believe that there should be industry-specific disclosure guidelines, and more disclosure should be made at the project level. Originality/value In the context of climate change, this study provides support for the signalling theory by utilising the relationship between voluntary carbon disclosure and performance. The study also provides empirical evidence on how companies may use different types of carbon information to signal their underlying carbon performance.

Purpose Research suggests that chief executive officers (CEOs) play an important role in enhancing a firm’s legitimacy with regard to environmental performance. The purpose of this paper is to use the upper echelons theory and stakeholder theory to investigate whether the characteristics of CEOs are associated with carbon performance (CP). Design/methodology/approach This paper uses a sample of 128 firm-year observations from Australian companies that participated in the carbon disclosure project from 2011 through 2014. Findings Two-stage least squares estimation reveals that CEO executive experience and CEO duality are positively associated with CP. By contrast, CEO tenure, CEO functional background experience and CEO industry experience are negatively related to CP, and CEO ownership is not related to CP. Practical implications The results might provide evidence for investors, policymakers and regulators with respect to the effectiveness of CEO characteristics for addressing carbon risks and possible linkages between CEO characteristics and carbon emission levels. In addition, the results give support CEO accountability regarding the carbon emissions. Originality/value This study provides the first empirical evidence of the impact of CEO characteristics on CP. Furthermore, this study contributes to the existing literature by showing how the characteristics of CEOs can impact corporate CP and provides a more in-depth understanding of whether such characteristics play important roles in determining corporate carbon action.