This study aims to evaluate the adequacy of climate risk disclosure by providing empirical evidence on whether corporate disclosure meets rising stakeholders’ demand for risk disclosure concerning climate change.
Drawing on a triangulated approach for collecting data from multiple sources in a longitudinal study, we perform a panel regression analysis on a sample of multinational firms between 2007 and 2021. Inspired by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) principles, our innovative and inclusive model of measuring firm-level climate risks underscores the urgent need to redefine materiality from a broader value creation (rather than only financial) perspective, including the impact on sustainable development.
The findings of this study provide evidence of limited corporate climate risk disclosure, indicating that organisations have yet to accept the reality of climate-related risks. An additional finding supports the existence of a nexus between higher corporate environmental disclosure and higher corporate resilience to material financial and environmental risks, rather than pervasive sustainability risk disclosure.
We argue that a mechanical process for climate-related risk disclosure can limit related disclosure variability, risk reporting priority selection, thereby broadening the short-term perspective on financial materiality assessment for disclosure.
This study extends recent literature on the adequacy of corporate risk disclosure, highlighting the importance of disclosing material sustainability risks from the perspectives of different stakeholder groups for long-term success. Corporate management should place climate-related risks at the centre of their disclosure strategies. We argue that reducing the systematic underestimation of climate-related risks and variations in their disclosure practices may require regulations that enhance corporate perceptions and responses to these risks.
This study emphasises the importance of reconceptualising materiality from a multidimensional value creation standpoint, encapsulating financial and sustainable development considerations. This novel model of assessing firm-level climate risk, based on the GRI principles, underscores the necessity of developing a more comprehensive approach to evaluating materiality.
The purpose of this study is to examine the existence of greenwashing and sustainable development goal (SDG)-washing processes by comparing ex ante (SDG Compass) and ex post (SDG Compliance) indicators and investigating whether the limitations associated with these indicators encourage companies to engage in washing processes.
The authors use a sample of 1,154 companies included in the S&P Sustainability Yearbook (formerly the RobecoSAM Yearbook). The authors test for the presence of greenwashing by comparing ex ante and ex post indicators for each SDG, whereas to test for SDG-washing, the authors compare the two ex ante and ex post approaches considering the full set of SDGs.
The results show that there is no consistency between the two types of indicators to measure the level of SDG implementation in organisations. This lack of consistency may facilitate both greenwashing and SDG-washing processes, which is due to the design and limitations of these measurement tools.
Companies may choose those indicators that paint their commitment to the SDGs in the best light, but they may also select indicators based on the SDGs they want to report on. These two options would combine greenwashing and SDG-washing.
The shift towards improved standards and regulations for measuring SDG achievement is the result of several social factors such as investor scrutiny, regulatory reform, consumer awareness and increased corporate accountability.
Few previous studies have analysed in detail the interaction between greenwashing and SDG-washing. They focus on the use of ex ante or ex post indicators separately, with samples composed of local companies, and without considering the whole set of SDGs.
This paper aims to investigate the potential influence of managers on sustainability assurance. When the quality of sustainability reporting is questionable because of subsequent restatements, the authors explore whether assurance is used to enhance its credibility as a legitimization tool or as an impression management strategy. Additionally, the authors analyze how capital markets react to this potential managerial capture and, particularly, whether investors penalize this practice through the cost of capital.
Using an international sample from 2012 to 2016 and panel data regressions, this study relies on DICTION’s master variables of optimism and certainty to examine the impact of managers on assurance and the market’s reaction to these practices.
The study shows that some managers might use assurance as a legitimization tool rather than as a means of reinforcing the credibility of sustainability reporting. In such cases, the results reveal that investors penalize (reward) managerial influence (no influence) on assurance.
The new findings help companies understand that they will not improve their financing terms if investors perceive that managers have influenced assurance. Moreover, these findings emphasize the need for standardization to clarify assurance criteria and prevent managerial influence.
Managerial influence on assurance raises doubts about its value in terms of reducing information asymmetry and especially improving investors’ decision-making.
The present study represents the first evidence of the potential use of assurance for non-informative purposes. The authors provide clear evidence of how investors penalize managerial influence on assurance, in contrast to the mainstream literature, which shows that this practice always improves investors’ decision-making and is rewarded.
By providing a critical analysis of a recent literature review concerning environmental, social and governance (ESG) and corporate social responsibility (CSR) research in finance which was published in the Journal of Corporate Finance (Gillan et al., 2021), examining it in the light of several reviews on the same or similar lines of research, this paper aims to serve those who wish to do research in the CSR/ESG/corporate sustainability and the reporting thereof areas in finance.
This note serves to comment on Gillan et al.’s review.
Irrespective of the merits of the review, it should not be used by newcomers to the research on CSR in corporate finance given that it provides a very biased view of it.
This commentary serves the purpose of cautioning those interested in becoming acquainted with CSR-related research in corporate finance that the review on which it focuses should be used only as an entry point, given that it offers an incomplete and biased picture.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：