Corporate Carbon Performance Data: Quo Vadis?

Abstract

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. K E Y W O R D Sclimate change, corporate carbon performance, data consistency, estimation method, industrial ecology, third-party provider INTRODUCTIONCorporate carbon performance (CCP) has emerged as a focal point in many domains: accounting and reporting schemes have been developed; a variety of actors in political, academic, and business spheres use these data; and business-related carbon emissions are considered increasingly relevant for investors' market valuation of firms (

Carbon disclosure policy, external financing needs and the cost of capital: Does financial market quality matter?

“…3 Busch et al (2018) show that the correlation in scope 1 and 2 emissions data across five data providers, CDP, Trucost, MSCI, Sustainalytics and Thomson Reuters is around 0.99, and 0.98 for reported emissions, and 0.79 and 0.63 for estimated emissions across the three providers, Trucost, MSCI and Sustainalytics. This approach is based on the argument that considering emission category score and scopes variables provides a better framework than considering the entire coverage of Thomson Reuters ' ESG data.…”

The role of CEO regulatory focus in increasing or reducing corporate carbon emissions

“…We use the reported and estimated Scope 1 and 2 emissions of companies in metric tons. Like all GHG emission data, Scope 1 and 2 emissions are expressed in CO 2 equivalents, which comprise all GHG that cause anthropogenic climate change (Busch et al, 2018). Due to their pronounced skewness, we transformed Scope 1 and 2 emissions by their natural logarithm.…”

“…Due to their pronounced skewness, we transformed Scope 1 and 2 emissions by their natural logarithm. Since corporate carbon data is often subject to outliers (Busch et al, 2018), we avoided distortions due to extreme observations by winsorizing the logarithmized Scope 1 and 2 emissions at the 1% level.…”

Does it pay to be science‐based green? The impact of science‐based emission‐reduction targets on corporate financial performance

“…Companies’ GHG emissions are expressed in CO 2 ‐equivalent emissions (Busch et al., 2018). These emissions are classified into three categories or scopes.…”