Stakeholder pressure and greenhouses gas voluntary disclosures

Abstract

This paper reports managers' perceived importance of various stakeholders' pressure in their greenhouse gas (GHG) disclosure decisions. We also report on which stakeholders explain the variation in the extent of GHG disclosures. Further, evidence of how firm size moderates the relationship between some stakeholders and GHG disclosure is provided. Data were obtained through a mail survey of the United Kingdom's FTSE 100 listed firms, to which 62 firms responded. GHG disclosures within the respondents' annual reports were scored, and regression analysis was undertaken to determine if a relationship existed between actual GHG disclosures and the rating assigned to the stakeholders. The results indicate that the provider stakeholder group (shareholders, investors and community) is perceived to have the most significant influence on managers' GHG disclosure decisions, followed by government regulators, organisational (employee, customers and suppliers) stakeholders and social (competitors, NGOs and media) stakeholders, respectively. Regression results show a positive and significant relationship between perceived organisational and regulatory stakeholder pressure and actual GHG disclosures. However, the relationship between providers and social stakeholders and GHG disclosure is not significant. The findings further suggest that the relationships between organisational and regulatory pressure are moderated by firm size. The results have important implications for policymakers.

The impact of transformational leadership on supplier relational stability: The moderating role of automation and globalization

“…Nevertheless, according to Pielsticker and Hiebl (2020) and Mellahi and Harris (2016), response rates in business and management research have decreased significantly in recent years, especially from CEOs (see also Cycyota & Harrison, 2006). Altogether, 156 partially or fully completed survey questionnaires were received, resulting in a satisfactory response rate of 14%, which is similar to those of recent studies (e.g., Bhatia, 2021; Bonner et al, 2021; Chithambo et al, 2022; Gunarathne et al, 2021; Ljungkvist & Andersén, 2021; Salo et al, 2020; Todaro et al, 2021). As we had to exclude 35 cases due to a lack of information, our final sample contained 121 cases.…”

Executive compensation, environmental performance, and sustainable banking: The moderating effect of governance mechanisms

“…In view of this, several central banks and other financial regulators have recommended banks to assess their contribution to environmental and climate‐related risks (Agliardi & Agliardi, 2021; Lamperti et al, 2021; Monasterolo et al, 2021). In particular, environmentally responsible behaviors such as green technologies, green products, green finance, and green strategies are increasingly being requested by firms' stakeholders (Atif et al, 2020; Basse Mama & Mandaroux, 2021; Chithambo et al, 2021; Dögl & Behnam, 2015; Gerged et al, 2021; Lu & Herremans, 2019; Park, 2018; Singh et al, 2021; Zameer et al, 2021).…”

Sustainable banking initiatives, environmental disclosure and financial performance: The moderating impact of corporate governance mechanisms

“…Global attempts that seek to minimize climate change through the design and adoption of sustainable corporate strategies have deepened over the past three decades (Baboukardos, 2018; Chithambo et al, 2022; Cosma et al, 2021; Huiskamp et al, 2022). For instance, policymakers and various governments are increasingly exhibiting greater concern about the risks of a severe climate crisis on the environment.…”

“…Global attempts that seek to minimize climate change through the design and adoption of sustainable corporate strategies have deepened over the past three decades (Baboukardos, 2018;Chithambo et al, 2022;Cosma et al, 2021;Huiskamp et al, 2022).…”