As part of their annual directors' report, UK‐listed companies are now required to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and account publicly for their contributions to climate change. This paper uses this mandatory carbon reporting to explore wider debates about corporate social responsibility and the purpose, practice, and impacts of such non‐financial reporting. Empirically, it combines documentary analysis of the carbon reporting practices of 176 large firms listed in the FTSE100 and/or subject to the UK government's adaptation reporting power with 60 interviews with stakeholders involved in carbon reporting. Firms disclose their emissions in response to financial incentives, social pressure and/or regulatory compulsion. In turn, rationales shape whether and how carbon reporting influences internal business processes and performance. The importance of reporting to the bottom line varies by sector depending on two variables – energy intensity and economic regulator status – yet there is limited evidence that carbon reporting is driving substantial reductions in emissions. Findings suggest reasons for caution about hopes for ‘nudging’ firms to improve their environmental performance and social responsibility through disclosure requirements.

Hypocrisy creates significant challenges for managers and stakeholders. Knowledge of its nature and causes is extensive; however, understandings of its implications for management practice are limited. This study draws on the transparency literature, notably Schnackenberg and Tomlinson's (2016) disclosure, clarity and accuracy framework, to show that the way in which information is presented affects the way hypocrisy manifests and how it can be addressed. We analysed the sustainability reports of three financial services companies in Australia over a five-year period and found that in addition to minimising duplicity, transparency can increase engagement with the competing expectations facing companies.Despite its limitations, sustainability reporting offers insights in to the nature, causes and implications of organisational hypocrisy.

With future changes in climate being inevitable, adaptation planning has become a policy priority. A central element in adaptation planning is scientific expertise and knowledge of what the future climate may hold. The U.K. Climate Projections 2009 (UKCP09) provide climate information designed to help those needing to plan how to adapt to a changing climate. This paper attempts to determine how useful and usable UKCP09 is for adaptation decision making. The study used a mixed-methods approach that includes analysis of adaptation reports, a quantitative survey, and semistructured interviews with key adaptation stakeholders working in the science-policy interface, which included decision makers, knowledge producers, and knowledge translators. The knowledge system criteria were used to assess the credibility, legitimacy, and saliency of UKCP09 for each stakeholder group. It emerged that stakeholders perceived UKCP09 to be credible and legitimate because of its sophistication, funding source, and the scientific reputation of organizations involved in UKCP09's development. However, because of the inherent complexities of decision making and a potentially greater diversity in users, UKCP09's saliency was found to be dependent upon the scientific competence and familiarity of the user(s) in dealing with climate information. An example of this was the use of Bayesian probabilistic projections, which improved the credibility and legitimacy of UKCP09's science but reduced the saliency for decision making. This research raises the question of whether the tailoring of climate projections is needed to enhance their salience for decision making, while recognizing that it is difficult to balance the three knowledge criteria in the production of usable science.

Sustainability reporting 'nudges' firms into behaving more sustainably by forcing them to account publicly for their wider social and environmental performance. This libertarian paternalist approach to governance through disclosure rather than command-and-control regulation is well established in Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions, but comparatively untested in the emerging markets of Asia where different state traditions and forms of business organization raise questions about its transferability and effectiveness. This paper contributes to research on corporate social responsibility, neoliberal environmental governance, and Asian varieties of capitalism by providing the first comparative analysis of the origins, design, and initial impact of new sustainability reporting requirements on the stock markets of Hong Kong and Singapore. In mandating sustainability reporting, both exchanges were similarly concerned with following international norms and competitors but differed in the style and granularity of their company disclosure requirements. These policy design choices reflected different developmental state traditions and the different audiences that market regulators in Hong Kong and Singapore sought to influence through these public accounts. Notwithstanding substantial differences between Hong Kong's rules-based and Singapore's principlesbased approach to reporting, the response in both markets was remarkably similar. In both cases sustainability reporting was largely ignored by local market players who dismissed it as a foreign practice of interest to only a small number of western institutional investors and providing little incentive to go beyond tick box compliance. These findings raise questions about the effectiveness of disclosure requirements at nudging Asian businesses towards sustainability.JEL codes: D22, G14, G38, M48

Alternative approaches to environmental regulation have gained much attention in recent years. Information-based regulation is an increasingly popular type of instrument that refers to the use of ratings, rankings, labels, online inventories and similar public disclosure practices by regulators. Such schemes vary in their design, disclosure formats, mechanisms to influence behaviour and performance. Theoretical and practical questions remain about whether and how regulators can use voluntary and/or beyond compliance disclosures. The article develops a classification of information-based schemes based on whether the scheme is mandatory or voluntary, and whether the disclosures reveal compliance or beyond compliance performance behaviours. The classification is used to show how the different schemes (traditional, assurance, performance and proactive) work in practice with their associated risks, benefits and mechanisms. While regulators are experimenting with this new frontier of regulation, it is not yet clear whether all types of schemes will be sufficiently robust to deliver on the promise they hold for enthusiasts of smart regulation. We conclude with implications and future research questions on the nature of voluntariness and compliance in information-based regulation.

Summary Considerable resources are invested in producing sustainability reports, yet few organizations reap the transparency benefits they promise. This article explores the way ten leading global fashion companies use a combination of data visualization and placement, stakeholder-driven interactive content, and multi-media and immersive content to build the trust necessary to improve their reporting and transparency. While few organizations have the resources of the global fashion giants, this article proposes a four-stage framework that guides managers through a step-change of systematic and targeted improvement.

No abstract

For 20 years the private sector has discussed climate change. While information about greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and reduction targets has become something of a feature in corporate reporting, the majority of businesses do not report on the current and future predicted effects of climate change on their organisation and their proposals for adapting to climate change. This dearth of information about a company’s climate resilience and preparedness is a concern given shareholders, investors, policymakers, and other key stakeholders use corporate reports to inform decision-making. Beyond assumptions, little empirical insights exist on why companies do not disclose on climate change. Utilising 60 interviews with stakeholders involved in climate change reporting, this paper explores why companies do not report corporate climate change adaptation strategies. The paper uncovers various social and organisational factors that raise new insights about the role of the institutional environment in suppressing the spread and uptake of this organisational practice. Insights highlight policy, practice and research opportunities to change organisational behaviour.