JOURNAL OF SECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online
2020 June Volume 9 Number 4
https://doi.org/10.9770/jssi.2020.9.4(3)
INSIGHTS INTO RESEARCH ON CARBON DISCLOSURE
Iman Harymawan1, *, Nadia Klarita Rahayu2, Dyah Ayu Larasati3, Abdul Ghofar4, Dian Agustia5
1,2,3,5Department of Accountancy, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia
4Department of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Business, Brawijaya University, Indonesia
E-mails: 1*harymawan.iman@feb.unair.ac.id (Corresponding author)
Received 18 November 2019; accepted 30 March 2020; published 30 June 2020
Abstract. Along with the rapid growth of technology, environmental problems have become an unavoidable event. These environmental
problems are the main factors that can aect sustainable development. Under the increasingly modern market pressure, many companies
are disclosing information about carbon emission. This study tries to provide an overview of research related to carbon emission disclosure.
This research was conducted by analyzing the research with the title “carbon emission disclosure” or “carbon disclosure project” on
Scopus. 21 studies were found in this search. We found articles with extensive discussion covering the environment, accounting, and law.
We also provide control variable may be used by future researchers.
Keywords: carbon disclosure project; carbon disclosure; CDP; carbon emissions
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Harymawan, I., Rahayu, N.K., Larasati, D.A., Ghofar, A., Agustia, D. 2020. Insights
into research on carbon disclosure. Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues, 9(4), 1157-1164. https://doi.org/10.9770/jssi.2020.9.4(3)
JEL Classications: Q50; Q01
1. Introduction
Carbon emissions are reaching disturbing levels, recommending the need to balance the company’s envi-
ronmental, social, and economic performance (Oestreich & Tsiakas, 2015; Zamil et al., 2019; Atari et al.,
Caurkubule et al., 2020; Tvaronavičienė et al., 2020; El Idrissi et al., 2020). Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated that greenhouse gas emissions between 2000-2010 had reached 2.2%
per year, yet it is the highest number in the last three decades. Compared to 1970-2000, greenhouse gas emis-
sion is about 1.3% per year (KLH, 2015). Numerous acts have been adopted to mitigate climate change. In
2000, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) was launched in the UK, aiming to collect environment-related
data. The data were collected among the company and make it available to the public to support climate or
environment-related decisions for the manager and other company’s stakeholders. As a form of their concern
for climate change, the United Nations also enacted an international agreement on global warming called the
Kyoto protocol. Countries that ratify this protocol are committed to reducing carbon dioxide emissions and
other greenhouse gases.
The implications of the Kyoto Protocol have arisen the issue of carbon accounting, which is a way for compa-
nies to recognize, measure, record, present, and disclose carbon emissions. The alarming concerns in carbon
pollution has prompted companies to conduct carbon emission disclosure as a form of their corporate responsi-
bility. Carbon emission disclosure has become a topic that has often been discussed on several research in the
past recent years (Choi et al., 2013; Ben-Amar et al., 2017; Chariri et al., 2018; Fonseca & Gonzales, 2008;
Ganda & Ngwakwe 2013; Matsumura et al., 2014; Mayorova, 2019; Hermawan, Gunardi, 2019).
1158
JOURNAL OF SECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online
Carbon emission disclosure allows stakeholders to assess the role of their companies in reducing greenhouse
gases. Also, carbon emission disclosure is one form of corporate concern for the environment. Andrew and
Cortese (2011) state that carbon disclosure is presented as a voluntary form used for internal and external deci-
sion making. Voluntary environmental disclosure was found that they worked as a complement to enhance the
performance of economic, social, and environment to achieve sustainable development in Bangladeshi corpora-
tion (Kumar, 2012). The company’s eorts to reduce carbon emissions with carbon accounting are in line with
the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility.
We conducted a search in May 2019 using Scopus database. We have narrowed the scope of our search and
provided some initial insight on carbon disclosure practice. We use Scopus-indexed documents such as pro-
ceeding and journal articles that relevant to the carbon disclosure issue to be included in our paper discussion.
This research aims to discuss the prior nding on Carbon Disclosures, identify trends, the theory, and overall
relationships. The initial search found 22 results; one of the results is in the form of a book chapter. Of that
initial search, 21 documents were relevant to be included in our paper discussion.
There are 8 studies using more than one country as their samples (Alrazi et al., 2018; Chariri et al., 2018; Green
& Zhou, 2013; Hover & Fafatas, 2018; Kim & Lyon, 2011; Ott & Gunther, 2015; Turkova & Donze, 2016).
While the rest uses only samples from one country consisting of German, Australia, Canada, Indonesia, China,
French, Brazil, and Turkey. Almost all studies use samples from all industries except research conducted by
(Hermawan et al., 2019).
2. Frame Condition
The theory used in relation to carbon emission disclosure is Legitimacy theory and Stakeholder theory. There
are socialization theory due to topics related to gender but it is not because of the carbon emission disclosure.
The concept of the legitimacy theory in the relationship between the company and the environment is impor-
tant in the analysis process. Legitimacy can be achieved by taking actions that support the company’s social
obligations such as corporate social responsibility through environmental concerns. According to the stake-
holder theory by Freeman (1984), A stakeholder is a group or individual who can aect or is aected by the
achievement of the organization’s objectives. Any voluntary disclosures made in the Company Report aim to
address stakeholders’ concerns. The companies will respond to the stakeholder by disclosing information that
is perceived by the stakeholders but still consistent with the rm’s activities (Freedman & Jaggi, 2011). Nowa-
days, various stakeholders are concerned about environmental things such as climate change, GHG emission,
and also carbon emission. For example, Institutional investors, for instance, will focus their attention on the
nancial impact of carbon management, customers are attentive to the way rms meet their climate change
commitments, suppliers are interested in potential production process transformations, public opinion (the col-
lective body or community) is concerned about the eects of GHG emissions on human health, etc (Depoers et
al., 2016). Their concern may put pressure on rms to report their environmental-related responsibility.
Table 1. Frame Condition
No Tittle & Author Journal Theory Country
1 Andromidas (2013) Neue Solidaritat Legitimacy
Theory
German
2 Chariri et al. (2018) International Conference on Energy,
Environmental, and Information System
Global ((Denmark, Finland,
Iceland, Norway, and Sweden)
3 Bae Choi et al. (2013) Pacic Accounting Review Legitimacy
Theory
Australia
4 Ben-Amar et al. (2017) Journal Business Ethics Socialization
Theory
Canada
5 Sudibyo (2018) The 4th International Seminar on
Sustainable Urban Development
Indonesia
6Yumeng, Yu (2014) 13th International Conference on Service
Systems and Service Management
China
7 De Faria, Andrade, &
da Silva Gomes (2018)
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for
Global Changes
Legitimacy
Theory
JOURNAL OF SECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online
1159
8 Depoers, Jeanjean, &
Jérôme (2016)
Journal Business Ethics Stakeholder
Theory
French
9 Farias & Andrade (2014) International Journal Innovation and
Sustainable Development
Brazil
10 Ganda (2018) Environment, Development, and
Sustainability
Legitimacy
Theory
South Africa
11 Green & Zhou (2013) Australian Accounting Review Global
12 Hoover & Fafatas (2018) Academic Paper Stakeholder
Theory
Global
13 Alrazi, Bahari, Mat Husin,
& Khalid (2018)
International Journal of Engineering
and Technology
Global
14 Kim & Lyon (2011) The B.E Journal Economics Analysis and
Policy
Global
15 Matiso, Noonan, &
O’Brien (2013)
Business Strategy and The Environment Global
16 Ott, Schiemann, &
Günther (2017)
Journal of Accounting and Public Policy Global
17 Simnettand & Nugent (2013) Forum: Accounting and
Auditing Standards Board
Australia
18 Kılıç & Kuzey (2019) International Journal of Climate Change
Strategies and Management
Turkey
19 Nisak & Yuniarti (2018) 2nd International Conference on Energy
and Environmental Science
Legitimacy
Theory
Indonesia
20 Turková & Donze (2016) International Journal of Sustainable
Development and Planning
Global
(EU, US, UK)
21 Hermawan, Aisyah,
Gunardi, & Putri (2018)
International Journal of Energy Economics
and Policy 8(1), pp. 55-61
Indonesia
3. CDP as Dependent Variable
Table 2. CDP as Dependent Variable
Author Dependent Variable Interested Variable
Chariri et al. (2018) Carbon Emission Disclosure 1. Independent Audit Committee
2. Audit Committee expertise
3. Audit Committee meeting
Ben-Amar et al. (2017) Disclosure Decisions Board Gender Diversity
Alrazi et al. (2018) Carbon Emission Disclosure 1. EMS Certication, Environmental Committee
2. GRI guidelines
3. CDP Survey
Ott et al. (2017) 1. Firms Respond to CDP 1. Prot
2. ISO14000
3. Publication
2. Publication 1. Prot
2. ISO14000
3. GHG
4. GHG_SQ
5. Substitutability
6. Market Size
Kılıç & Kuzey (2019) 1. CDI
2. Firms Respond to CDP
1. Board Size
2. Board Independence
3. Board Gender Diversity
4. Blau index of gender diversity
5. Blau index of nationality diversity
6. Sustainability committee
7. Blau foreign
Nisak & Yuniarti (2018) Carbon Emission Disclosure 1. Regulators
2. Institutional ownership
3. Firm size
4. Protability
1160
JOURNAL OF SECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online
A total of 6 studies used carbon emission disclosure as a dependent variable. The studies that use CDP as their
dependent variable are summarized in Table 2. The study discusses the relationship between corporate govern-
ance (Chariri et al., 2018; Kilic & Kuzey, 2019, Ott et al., 2017), rm characteristic (Nisak & Yuniarti, 2018;
Ott et al., 2017), and internal control (Al-Razi et al., 2018; Ott et al., 2017) on carbon emission disclosure.
The measurement of carbon emission disclosure variables diers in each study. Chariri et al. (2018) measured
carbon emission disclosure using the carbon emissions disclosure scores obtained from the Nordic Carbon
Disclosure Project in 2015. Ben-Amar et al. (2017) measured carbon emission disclosure as a dummy variable,
that equals one if the rm has responded to the CDP request for public disclosure of climate change strategies
and GHG emissions and zero if otherwise. Alrazi et al. (2018) measured carbon emission disclosure according
to the disclosure index from the CDP Annual Information request sheets, and they measure the disclosure with
dummy variable (1=if disclosed, 0= if not disclosed). Ott et al. (2017) measured carbon emission disclosure
using dummy variables in two dierent measurements. First, he used rm’s respond to CDP, which dened as a
dichotomous variable that equals one if a rm responds to the CDP questionnaire in the following year and zero
otherwise. Second, he used publication, which dened as a dichotomous variable that equals one if a rm pub-
lishes its response to the CDP questionnaire in the following year and zero otherwise. Kilic and Kuzey (2019)
also use two proxies to measure carbon emission disclosure. First is the carbon disclosure index, calculated by
dividing the items disclosed to a maximum number of items that a rm could disclose. The second measure-
ment is the same as the measurement taken by Ben-Amar et al. (2017). And the last Nisak and Yuniarti (2018)
measure carbon emission disclosure with a dummy variable. If the company’s disclosure in accordance with the
specied item will be given a score of 1, whereas if the item determined is not disclosed within the disclosure it
will be given a score of 0, then the score 1 overall summed and divided by the maximum number of items that
can be expressed and then multiplied by 100%.
Previous research can be classied into two, rst concerning the company’s corporate governance, and the sec-
ond is regarding the corporate characteristics. In the corporate governance issue, the existence of an independ-
ent audit committee, audit committee expertise, audit committee meeting, and board gender diversity within
the company have a positive eect on carbon emission disclosure (Chariri et al., 2018). Independent audit
committees make their members more objective and neutral in supervising management regarding nancial re-
porting practice, including carbon emission disclosure (Chariri et al., 2018). The second classication is based
on their concern on rm characteristics, which consists of rm protability, leverage, and market size. Firm
protability has a positive impact, while leverage has a negative impact on carbon emissions disclosure (Nisak
& Yuniarti, 2018). Market size also showed a negative impact on publication decisions (Ott et al., 2017). A
study about internal control shows a positive relationship between ISO14000, protability, and the publication
of CSR report within rms in responding to the Carbon Disclosure Project (Ott et al., 2017). Prot, ISO14000,
greenhouse gas, squared greenhouse gas, and substitutability are also documented to have a positive impact on
a rm’s publication decision (Ott et al., 2017).
Four of the six studies that used carbon emission disclosure as the dependent variable employed rm size as
a control variable (Alrazi et al., 2018; Ben-Amar et al., 2017; Kilic & Kuzey, 2019; Ott et al., 2017). The re-
sults show a consistent result where rm size positively aects carbon emission disclosure (Ben-Amar et al.,
2017; Kilic & Kuzey, 2019; Ott et al., 2017). Ott et al. (2017) nd that size seems to be a determinant of both
response decisions and publication decisions. Several reasons shaped a positive relationship between rm size
and voluntary carbon emission disclosure (Kilic & Kuzey, 2019). Large rms are subject to more intense exter-
nal monitoring than smaller rms, as this happened such as rm will disclose more environmental information,
this argument in line with accountability and visibilities as outlined in legitimacy theory (Cornier et al., 2006).
Second, carbon emission reporting is a part of overall carbon mitigation activities involving a substantial in-
vestment, a long-term commitment, and the establishment of a carbon management system. Large companies
have pressure from stakeholders that causes companies to report carbon emission disclosure properly (Nisak &
Yuniarti, 2018). The cost of making a revision in existing infrastructures or establishing a carbon management
system will be more aordable for large entities (Kilic & Kuzey, 2019).
JOURNAL OF SECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online
1161
Leverage also becomes one of the control variables that mostly used in research with carbon emission disclo-
sure as the dependent variable (Alrazi et al., 2018; Bae et al., 2013; Kilic & Kuzey,2019; Ott et al., 2017). Only
research conducted by Ott et al. (2017) found that leverage has a positive and signicant impact on a rm’s
publication decisions. Creditors appear to exercise on the rm to publish environmental information, which
they need to evaluate the rms’ environmental performance (Ott et al., 2017). Other control variable used the
other control variable, they were independence committee, CEO duality, number of board standing committee,
high carbon industrial sector, mandatory retirement policy for directors, protability, price to book, and board
size (Ben-Amar et al., 2017), return on asset (Alrazi et al., 2018), GHG, GHG_SQ, CONC, Substitutability,
market size, age, capex, CIND, TRAD, SIGNAT, GHGDUM, EXP_RESP, EXP_PUBL (Matsumura et al.,
2014), ROA, ROE, Industry, listing (Kilic & Kuzey, 2019).
4. CDP as Independent Variable
Table 3. CDP as Independent Variable
Author Dependent Variable Interested Variable
Sudibyo (2018) Firm Value Volume of Carbon Emissions, Disclosure of Carbon Management Practice, and Carbon
Management Disclosure
Ganda (2018) Firm Performance Carbon Emission Disclosure Rating
Previous research (Table 3) shows that Carbon Disclosure becomes not only dependent variables but also as
independent variables Freeman (1984) and Ott at al. (2017). This idea is brought up from the notion that car-
bon emissions disclosure is a signicant green-based practice that promotes sustainable development. On the
other side, the company is also required to be resource ecient and cost-eective to enhance protability. As
such, companies should transform their carbon-related environmental capabilities into a competitive advan-
tage, thereby improving their overall economic and nancial performance. This perspective explains increased
global interest in carbon emissions disclosure, carbon performance, and corporate nancial performance Freed-
man and Jaggi (2011).
Ganda (2018) shows that the carbon disclosure rating generates a positive relationship with ROA. As accounting-
based indicators, ROA usually shows historical and short-run nancial performance. Company and stakeholders
are also interested in past and short-term carbon reporting in order to manage green-linked risks associated with
fast-growing green stakeholders, as carbon disclosure also showing a short-term report, it is viable that carbon
disclosure is associated with higher ROA. Content analysis was employed to collect the rm’s Carbon Disclo-
sure rating scores on the other side using developing countries as the research sample, Sudibyo (2018) found
that carbon emission was not related to rm value. This nding remains dierent from similar research done
in developed countries, Saka and Oshika (2014) nd that carbon disclosure has a positive eect on rm value.
Carbon emission disclosure is measured by the scoring model using the checklist that constructed based on the
factors identied in the information request sheet by the CDP (Bae-Choi et al., 2013; Sudibyo 2018).
5. Conclusions
Construction companies in Indonesia demonstrate the accountability of their companies by participating in
reporting information relating to environmental issues in their sustainability report. This research that involves
152 sustainability reports of companies in the building and non-building construction sectors listed on the In-
donesia Stock Exchange in 2010-2018, was analyzed using sentiment analysis.
The results of the sentiment analysis showed that many companies in the building and non-building construc-
tion sectors had used a choice of words that contained positive sentiment compared to negative sentiment. In
rm distribution analysis, non-building construction sectors use words with positive sentiments, compared to
building one.
1162
JOURNAL OF SECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online
From these results, sentiment analysis in construction companies is expected to contribute in helping stakehold-
ers to analyse and assist stakeholders in making decisions related to economic, social and environmental issues
while at the same time being an evaluation material for companies to make disclosures in order to increase
corporate accountability, as well as paying attention to economic, social and environmental issues.
References
Alrazi, B., Bahari, N. A. S., Mat Husin, N., & Khalid, F. M. (2018). Institutional Governance Perspectives of Carbon Emission Disclo-
sures among Electricity Companies in Asia. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(4.35), 803. https://doi.org/10.14419/
ijet.v7i4.35.23111
Andrew, J., & Cortese, C. (2011). Accounting for climate change and the self-regulation of carbon disclosures. Accounting Forum,
35(3), 130-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2011.06.006
Andromidas, A. (2013). The “Carbon Disclosure Project”: Its Target is Industry — What is the Objective? Energy & Environment,
24(5), 779-784. https://doi.org/10.1260/0958-305x.24.5.779
Atari, S., Bakkar, Y., Olaniyi, E. O., Prause, G. (2019). Real options analysis of abatement investments for sulphur emission control
compliance. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 6(3), 1062-1087. http://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2019.6.3(1)
Ben-Amar, W., Chang, M., & McIlkenny, P. (2017). Board Gender Diversity and Corporate Response to Sustainability Initiatives: Evi-
dence from the Carbon Disclosure Project. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(2), 369–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2759-1
Caurkubule, Zh. L., Kenzhin, Zh. B. Bekniyazova, D.S., Bayandina, G.D., Dyussembekova, G. S. 2020. Assessment of competitiveness
of regions of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Insights into Regional Development, 2(1), 469-479. http://doi.org/10.9770/IRD.2020.2.1(6)
Chariri, A., Januarti, I., & Yuyetta, E. N. A. (2018). Audit Committee Characteristics and Carbon Emission Disclosure. E3S Web of
Conferences, 73, 02001. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20187302001
Choi, B., Lee, D., & Psaros, J. (2013). An analysis of Australian company carbon emission disclosures. Pacic Accounting Review,
25(1), 58–79. https://doi.org/10.1108/01140581311318968
Cormier, D., Gordon, I. M., Cormier, D., & Gordon, I. M. (2006). An examination of social and environmental reporting strategies,
14(5), 587-617. https://doi.org/10.1108/eum0000000006264
de Faria, J. A., Andrade, J. C. S., & da Silva Gomes, S. M. (2018). The determinants mostly disclosed by companies that are members
of the Carbon Disclosure Project. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 23(7), 995-1018. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11027-018-9785-0
Depoers, F., Jeanjean, T., & Jérôme, T. (2016). Voluntary Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Contrasting the Carbon Disclosure
Project and Corporate Reports. Journal of Business Ethics, 134(3), 445–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2432-0
El Idrissi, N. E. A., Ilham Zerrouk, I., Zirari, N., Monni, S. (2020). Comparative study between two innovative clusters in Morocco and
Italy. Insights into Regional Development, 2(1), 400-417. http://doi.org/10.9770/IRD.2020.2.1(1)
Farias, L. das G. Q. de, & Andrade, J. C. S. (2014). Environmental strategies and global environmental governance: the experience of
carbon disclosure project/Brazil. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 8(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.1504/
ijisd.2014.059220
Fonseca, A. R., & González, F. (2008). Cross-country determinants of bank income smoothing by managing loan-loss provisions. Jour-
nal of Banking and Finance, 32(2), 217–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankn.2007.02.012
Freedman, M., & Jaggi, B. (2009). Global warming and corporate disclosures: A comparative analysis of companies from the European
Union, Japan and Canada (Vol. 4). https://doi.org/10.1108/s1479-3598(2010)0000004009
Freedman, M., & Jaggi, B. (2011). Global warming disclosures: Impact of Kyoto protocol across countries. Journal of International
Financial Management and Accounting, 22(1), 46–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-646x.2010.01045.x
Freeman, R. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder perspective. Boston: Pitman.
Ganda, F. (2018). The inuence of carbon emissions disclosure on company nancial value in an emerging economy. Environment,
Development and Sustainability, 20(4), 1723–1738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-017-9962-4
Ganda, F., & Ngwakwe, C. C. (2013). Environmental, social and governance disclosure: Transition towards a sustainable economy.
Korean Social Science Journal, 40(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40483-013-0004-z
JOURNAL OF SECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online
1163
Green, W., & Zhou, S. (2013). An International Examination of Assurance Practices on Carbon Emissions Disclosures. Australian Ac-
counting Review, 23(1), 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1835-2561.2012.00186.x
Hermawan, A., Aisyah, I. S., Gunardi, A., & Putri, W. Y. (2018). Going green: Determinants of carbon emission disclosure in manufac-
turing companies in Indonesia. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 8(1), 55–61. Retrieved from http://econjournals.
com/index.php/ijeep/article/view/6009
Hermawan, A., Gunardi, A. (2019). Motivation for disclosure of corporate social responsibility: evidence from banking industry in
Indonesia. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 6(3), 1097-1106. http://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2019.6.3(17)
Hoover, S., & Fafatas, S. (2018). Political environment and voluntary disclosure in the U.S.: Evidence from the Carbon Disclosure
Project. Journal of Public Aairs, 18(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1637
Kılıç, M., & Kuzey, C. (2019). The eect of corporate governance on carbon emission disclosures: Evidence from Turkey. International
Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 11(1), 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-07-2017-0144
Kim, E., & Lyon, T. (2011). Contributions Increase Shareholder Value?: The Carbon Disclosure Project Increase Shareholder Value ?:
The Carbon Disclosure Project. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 11(1), Article 50. https://doi.org/10.2202/1935-1682.2676
KLH. (2015). The 5th Assessment Report Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Outreach Event. Retreived from http://
www.menlh.go.id/the-5th-assessment-report intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change-ipcc-outreach-event/
Kumar, T. (2012). Achieving Sustainable Development through Environment Accounting from the Global Perspective: Evidence from
Bangladesh. Asian Journal of Accounting Research, 2(1), 45-61. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJAR-2017-02-01-B005
Matiso, D. C., Noonan, D. S., & O’Brien, J. J. (2013). Convergence in environmental reporting: Assessing the carbon disclosure pro-
ject. Business Strategy and the Environment, 22(5), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1741
Matsumura, E. M., Prakash, R., & Vera-Muñoz, S. C. (2014). Firm-value eects of carbon emissions and carbon disclosures. Accounting
Review, 89(2), 695–724. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50629
Mayorova, E. (2019). Corporate social responsibility disclosure: evidence from the European retail sector. Entrepreneurship and Sus-
tainability Issues, 7(2), 891- 905. http://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2019.7.2(7)
Nasih, M.; Harymawan, I.; Paramitasari, Y.I.; Handayani, A. (2019). Carbon Emissions, Firm Size, and Corporate Governance Struc-
ture: Evidence from the Mining and Agricultural Industries in Indonesia. Sustainability, 11, 2483. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092483
Nisak, K., & Yuniarti, R. (2018). The eect of protability and leverage to the carbon emission disclosure on companies that registered
consecutively in sustainability reporting award period 2014-2016. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 164(1),
2014–2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/164/1/012026
Oestreich, A. M., & Tsiakas, I. (2015). Carbon emissions and stock returns: Evidence from the EUEmissions Trading Scheme. Journal
of Banking & Finance, 58, 294–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankn.2015.05.005
Ott, C., Schiemann, F., & Günther, T. (2017). Disentangling the determinants of the response and the publication decisions: The case of
the Carbon Disclosure Project. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 36(1), 14–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2016.11.003
Saka C, & Oshika T. 2014. Disclosure Eects, Carbon Emission and Coporate Value. Sustainability Accounting. Management and
Policy Journal. 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-09-2012-0030
Simnettand, R., & Nugent, M. (2013). Assurance Standard. Encyclopedia of Corporate Social Responsibility, 17(2), 127–127. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28036-8_100080
Sudibyo, Y. A. (2018). Carbon emission disclosure: Does it matter. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 106(1).
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/106/1/012036
Turková, A., & Donze, L. (2016). The eect of rms reporting to the carbon disclosure project on their CO2emissions: Application on
industrial sector. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 11(6), 845–852. https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP-V11-
N6-845-852
Tvaronavičienė, M., Baublys, J., Raudeliūnienė, J., Jatautaitė, D. Chapter 1 - Global energy consumption peculiarities and energy
sources: Role of renewables, Editor(s): Manuela Tvaronavičienė, Beata Ślusarczyk, Energy Transformation Towards Sustainability,
Elsevier, 2020, Pages 1-49, ISBN 9780128176887, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-817688-7.00001-X
Yumeng, C, Yu, S. (2014). Study on status of voluntary carbon disclosure of China’ s listed companies. 10.1109/ICSSSM.2016.7538501
1164
JOURNAL OF SECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online
Zamil, A.M.A., Furqan, M., Mahmood, H. (2019). Trade openness and CO2 emissions nexus in Oman. Enterpreunership and Sustain-
ability Issues, 7(2), 1319-1329. http://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2019.7.2(36)
Zhang, B., & Wang, Z. (2014). Inter-rm collaborations on carbon emission reduction within industrial chains in China: Practices, driv-
ers and eects on rms’ performance. Energy Economics, 42, 115–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2013.12.006
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for their supportive comments and suggestions. The authors have
received funding for this research from Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia under Research Group scheme 2020.
Iman HARYMAWAN is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas
Airlangga, Indonesia. He obtained his PhD degree (2016) in accounting from City University of Hong Kong in Hong Kong, MBA
degree (2009) from National Cheng Kung University in Taiwan, and his B.A. degree (2006) in accounting from Universitas Airlangga
in Indonesia. His current research focuses include: corporate governance issues, the accounting impact of political and military connec-
tions in business, and nancial reporting quality. He currently teaches nancial reporting analysis, managerial accounting, and advanced
accounting. Research interest: board connection; corporate governance, management accounting.
ORCID ID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7621-6252
Nadia Klarita RAHAYU is master student in accounting from Universitas Airlangga in Indonesi. She currently works as reseach as-
sistant in Center of Politic, Economic, and Business Research (CPEBR), a researcher grup that operates under Faculty of Economics
and Business, Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia. Research interest: Financial Accounting and Auditing.
ORCID ID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8757-4407
Dyah Ayu LARASATI is bachelor student in accounting from Universitas Airlangga in Indonesi. She currently works as reseach as-
sistant in Center of Politic, Economic, and Business Research (CPEBR), a researcher grup that operates under Faculty of Economics and
Business, Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia. Research interest: Corporate Governance, Financial Accounting, and Auditing.
ORCID ID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2055-5065
Abdul GHOFAR is a lecturer of Brawijaya University, Indonesia. His current research focuses include corporate governance issues,
nancial accounting, auditing, and nancial reporting.
ORCID ID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0690-433X
Dian AGUSTIA is a Professor of Accounting in Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia. Her current research interests are sustainability ac-
counting and management accounting.
ORCID ID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4669-7344
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
