ArticlePDF Available


ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online
2020 June Volume 9 Number 4
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* (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 aect 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.
JEL Classications: 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).
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 eorts 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 aect or is aected 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 eects 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
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) Pacic Accounting Review Legitimacy
4 Ben-Amar et al. (2017) Journal Business Ethics Socialization
5 Sudibyo (2018) The 4th International Seminar on
Sustainable Urban Development
6Yumeng, Yu (2014) 13th International Conference on Service
Systems and Service Management
7 De Faria, Andrade, &
da Silva Gomes (2018)
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for
Global Changes
ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online
8 Depoers, Jeanjean, &
Jérôme (2016)
Journal Business Ethics Stakeholder
9 Farias & Andrade (2014) International Journal Innovation and
Sustainable Development
10 Ganda (2018) Environment, Development, and
South Africa
11 Green & Zhou (2013) Australian Accounting Review Global
12 Hoover & Fafatas (2018) Academic Paper Stakeholder
13 Alrazi, Bahari, Mat Husin,
& Khalid (2018)
International Journal of Engineering
and Technology
14 Kim & Lyon (2011) The B.E Journal Economics Analysis and
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
18 Kılıç & Kuzey (2019) International Journal of Climate Change
Strategies and Management
19 Nisak & Yuniarti (2018) 2nd International Conference on Energy
and Environmental Science
20 Turková & Donze (2016) International Journal of Sustainable
Development and Planning
(EU, US, UK)
21 Hermawan, Aisyah,
Gunardi, & Putri (2018)
International Journal of Energy Economics
and Policy 8(1), pp. 55-61
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 Certication, Environmental Committee
2. GRI guidelines
3. CDP Survey
Ott et al. (2017) 1. Firms Respond to CDP 1. Prot
2. ISO14000
3. Publication
2. Publication 1. Prot
2. ISO14000
3. GHG
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. Protability
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 diers 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 dierent measurements. First, he used rm’s respond to CDP, which dened 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 dened 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
specied 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 classied 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 eect 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 classication is based
on their concern on rm characteristics, which consists of rm protability, leverage, and market size. Firm
protability 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, protability, and the publication
of CSR report within rms in responding to the Carbon Disclosure Project (Ott et al., 2017). Prot, 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 aects 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 aordable for large entities (Kilic & Kuzey, 2019).
ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online
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 signicant 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, protability, 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 signicant green-based practice that promotes sustainable development. On the
other side, the company is also required to be resource ecient and cost-eective to enhance protability. 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 dierent from similar research done
in developed countries, Saka and Oshika (2014) nd that carbon disclosure has a positive eect on rm value.
Carbon emission disclosure is measured by the scoring model using the checklist that constructed based on the
factors identied 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.
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.
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.
Andrew, J., & Cortese, C. (2011). Accounting for climate change and the self-regulation of carbon disclosures. Accounting Forum,
35(3), 130-138.
Andromidas, A. (2013). The “Carbon Disclosure Project”: Its Target is Industry — What is the Objective? Energy & Environment,
24(5), 779-784.
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.
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.
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.
Chariri, A., Januarti, I., & Yuyetta, E. N. A. (2018). Audit Committee Characteristics and Carbon Emission Disclosure. E3S Web of
Conferences, 73, 02001.
Choi, B., Lee, D., & Psaros, J. (2013). An analysis of Australian company carbon emission disclosures. Pacic Accounting Review,
25(1), 58–79.
Cormier, D., Gordon, I. M., Cormier, D., & Gordon, I. M. (2006). An examination of social and environmental reporting strategies,
14(5), 587-617.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.n.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).
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.
Freeman, R. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder perspective. Boston: Pitman.
Ganda, F. (2018). The inuence of carbon emissions disclosure on company nancial value in an emerging economy. Environment,
Development and Sustainability, 20(4), 1723–1738.
Ganda, F., & Ngwakwe, C. C. (2013). Environmental, social and governance disclosure: Transition towards a sustainable economy.
Korean Social Science Journal, 40(1), 21–37.
ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online
Green, W., & Zhou, S. (2013). An International Examination of Assurance Practices on Carbon Emissions Disclosures. Australian Ac-
counting Review, 23(1), 54–66.
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.
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.
Hoover, S., & Fafatas, S. (2018). Political environment and voluntary disclosure in the U.S.: Evidence from the Carbon Disclosure
Project. Journal of Public Aairs, 18(4), 1–12.
Kılıç, M., & Kuzey, C. (2019). The eect of corporate governance on carbon emission disclosures: Evidence from Turkey. International
Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 11(1), 35–53.
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.
KLH. (2015). The 5th Assessment Report Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Outreach Event. Retreived from http:// 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.
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.
Matsumura, E. M., Prakash, R., & Vera-Muñoz, S. C. (2014). Firm-value eects of carbon emissions and carbon disclosures. Accounting
Review, 89(2), 695–724.
Mayorova, E. (2019). Corporate social responsibility disclosure: evidence from the European retail sector. Entrepreneurship and Sus-
tainability Issues, 7(2), 891- 905.
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.
Nisak, K., & Yuniarti, R. (2018). The eect of protability 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),
Oestreich, A. M., & Tsiakas, I. (2015). Carbon emissions and stock returns: Evidence from the EUEmissions Trading Scheme. Journal
of Banking & Finance, 58, 294–308.n.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.
Saka C, & Oshika T. 2014. Disclosure Eects, Carbon Emission and Coporate Value. Sustainability Accounting. Management and
Policy Journal. 5(1).
Simnettand, R., & Nugent, M. (2013). Assurance Standard. Encyclopedia of Corporate Social Responsibility, 17(2), 127–127. https://
Sudibyo, Y. A. (2018). Carbon emission disclosure: Does it matter. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 106(1).
Turková, A., & Donze, L. (2016). The eect 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.
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,
Yumeng, C, Yu, S. (2014). Study on status of voluntary carbon disclosure of China’ s listed companies. 10.1109/ICSSSM.2016.7538501
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.
Zhang, B., & Wang, Z. (2014). Inter-rm collaborations on carbon emission reduction within industrial chains in China: Practices, driv-
ers and eects on rms’ performance. Energy Economics, 42, 115–131.
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.
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.
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.
Abdul GHOFAR is a lecturer of Brawijaya University, Indonesia. His current research focuses include corporate governance issues,
nancial accounting, auditing, and nancial reporting.
Dian AGUSTIA is a Professor of Accounting in Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia. Her current research interests are sustainability ac-
counting and management accounting.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY).
... Another study documents that firms with audited ESG reporting in Malaysia and Indonesia tend to have higher firm value than non-audited ESG reporting [42]. Another relevant study examines one of the sub-topics of ESG reporting, the carbon disclosure, and finds that higher quality of carbon disclosure leads to better firm performance [43]. These studies conclude that ESG reporting will assist the management in identifying and exploiting its competitive advantage, thus enhancing its performance. ...
... Thus, in financially distressed firms' context, it is not merely that management does not experience ESG reporting benefit, rather they did not have that alternative to implement. Moreover, there is study that argues that the low financial distress risk of ESG-oriented firms may not be derived from its ESG reporting, instead it is coming from an extensive amount of resources that they control [43]. ...
Full-text available
This study examines the relationship between financial distress and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosure. We hypothesize that financially distressed firms are tempted to enhance ESG disclosure as it provides higher performance in terms of financial and market perspectives. ESG disclosure needs substantial resources, which financially distressed firms may not be able to provide. In Indonesian settings, we find that financially distressed firms have lower ESG disclosure quality than non-distressed firms. Our results are robust due to lagged variable, Heckman’s two stages, and coarsened exact matching regression showing consistent results. Furthermore, our results are consistent with three years of rolling windows of financial distress and all sections of ESG reporting, except the general information section. This study extends the scope of prior studies by focusing on firms’ eagerness to provide higher quality ESG disclosure, particularly distressed firms.
... Harymawan, Nasih, et al. (2020) shows that Indonesian and Malaysian firms are efficaciously enhancing their corporate images in the form of share value as they adopt assurance services on their ESG reporting. Correspondingly, another study documents carbon disclosure's merit in the form of a firm's value increases (Harymawan, Rahayu, et al., 2020). ...
This article examines the relationship between investment efficiency (INVEFF) and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting. We posit corporate integration management (CIM), which is reflected by the level of INVEFF, is a crucial driver for the better quality of ESG reporting. But there is a second possibility which ESG reporting is viewed as a different firm's burden, and therefore, it is a form of inefficiency. We test our hypothesis in Indonesia's unique setting of nonfinancial listed firms from 2010 to 2018. We find that INVEFF is confirmed as one of the critical drivers for enhancing ESG reporting quality. Our result is consistent during several robustness checks. Furthermore, we document that a positive relationship between INVEFF and ESG reporting is not incurred in all circumstances. Our study is one of few studies that focus on quantitative measurement of CIM and examines its relationship with ESG reporting.
Full-text available
The paper takes place in the research field of the European project “Cluster Development Med” (Horizon 2020) focusing on the innovation and technology in the sustainable development area. Authors suggest a comparative study, which allows selecting the most innovative clusters in Morocco and Italy, and making comparisons between and within them. The analysis defines the weaknesses and strengths in the both examined clusters and embrace three dimensions of cluster activity, so called, “Humain and Material Resources, Activities, Processes and strategies”. In this paper, we start by giving a global presentation of Moroccan clusters, their history and geolocation. As a first case of study, we focused on the “Maroc Numeric Cluster” (MNC) manely on its limitations and weaknesses. Thus, in the second case study, we present a cluster that is the beating heart of Italian excellence in the energy sector (Lombardy Energy Cleantech Cluster LE2C). The aim of this paper is to present the LE2C strengths and successful strategies in order to adapt them to the MNC cluster so that it can promote and accelerate again with a successfull proccess.
Full-text available
The purpose of this research was to examine the relationship between firm size, corporate governance, and carbon emission disclosure (CED) in Indonesia, a country with rich natural resources. This study focused on the mining and agricultural industries to better capture the disclosure behavior of companies directly engaged in natural resources. Using a sample of 305 firm-year observations of listed firms in Indonesia spanning from 2011 to 2016, the results show that larger firms and firms with larger board sizes are more likely to have higher disclosure on CED. We also showed that firms with a higher percentage of independent commissioners and directors are less likely to disclose information related to carbon emissions. These findings indicate that a greater number of commissioners and directors sitting on the board will stimulate a firm's decision to make a higher number of disclosures related to carbon emissions. However, the increased percentage of independent commissioners and directors will cause more conservative disclosure outcomes to the firms. In addition, firms in the mining industry are more likely to have a higher level of CED relative to firms in the agricultural industry. These findings remained robust even after we corrected the standard errors.
Full-text available
The study visualizes the link between environment accounting & triple bottom line, quantitative environmental reporting & standard method, voluntary environmental disclosure & legal requirement, size of company & volume of environmental disclosure, material flow analysis & life cycle assessment to achieve sustainable development in Bangladeshi corporation. Therefore, the purpose of the study is to investigate the role of these factors to achieve sustainable development in Bangladeshi corporation. To investigate the role of these factors, ten factors that significantly contribute to achieve sustainable development were determined. A set of closed-minded questionnaire was developed on the basis of these factors to collect the data from employees & employers. Questionnaire was administered by using statistical tools such as matrix, cross tabulation & Paired Samples Tests as a data collection tool and analyses. Research finding shows that sustainability of corporation was associated with the performance of economic, social, and environment. Other factors like quantitative environmental reporting, standard method, voluntary environmental disclosure, legal requirement, size of the company, volume of environmental disclosure, material flow analysis & life cycle assessment were found that they worked as a complement to enhance the performance of economic, social, and environment to achieve sustainable development in Bangladeshi corporation.
Full-text available
A closer look at the SECA compliance the situation reveals that the currently preferred compliance strategies depend on low oil price where ship owners shun investments in abatement technologies which may lead into an economic trap in the event of the oil price increase. The research considers incentive provisions for maritime investors who make investment decisions related to clean shipping and maritime fuel management. Traditionally, the financial assessments of these decisions are based on capital budgeting methods comprising cash flow analyses and net present value calculations. The findings reveal that the Real-Option approach represents a more realistic, reliable and promising method for the evaluation of abatement projects, especially under uncertainty and high volatility in material resource markets. The results can be applied to the evaluation of all projects in the maritime industry that depends on the price variation of the underlying asset during a specific period.
Full-text available
On the basis of institutional governance perspectives, it examines internal and state factors influencing the carbon emission disclosures among 75 electricity companies in Asia. It content analysed the annual reports and stand-alone sustainability reports for the year 2013. Overall, the findings suggested that the adoption of GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines and a country's strength of law enforcement and commitment towards the environment had a significant influence on the extent of carbon emission disclosures. Other variables - environmental management system, environmental committee, voluntary participation in CDP programmme, corporate governance, and country's legal origin - are not significant. Considering electricity industry and Asian region are among the main contributors to the global carbon emissions, there is a pressing need for the leaders within the industry and across the countries to institute mechanisms to combat climate change including through making corporate disclosures mandatory.
Full-text available
Business activities have contributed to the increasing level of carbon emissions, which can endanger the environment. Such phenomena have pushed companies to disclose a variety of carbon emission information to show their responsibilities. Thus, this study aims to investigate the influence of audit characteristics (independence, expertise, meetings) on carbon emission disclosure. Data were collected from the Nordic companies, which were registered in the 2015 Carbon Disclosure Project. A total of 105 companies were used as samples for further analysis. A regression model was then employed to analyse the data. The findings showed that all characteristics of audit committees (independent audit committee, audit committee expertise and audit committee meetings) positively affected carbon emission disclosure. This study implies that companies that are interested in disclosing carbon emission information should create more independent members of audit committees whose expertise or experiences are in accounting/finance/risk. The audit committee members should be also actively involved in regular meetings to monitor and evaluate company’s policy on carbon emission disclosure.
Full-text available
This study aimed to examine the effect of profitability and leverage to the carbon emission disclosure on Companies that Registered Consecutively in Sustainability Reporting Award Period 2014-2016. The objects in this research are profitability, leverage and carbon emission disclosure. The dependent variable in this study is the carbon emission disclosure and independent variable is profitability and leverage. Research methods used in this research is explanatory. The research results showed that profitability and leverage significantly influental to the carbon emission disclosure. Profitability variable contributes to the influence of 19.05% againts the carbon emission disclosure. Leverage variable contributes to the influnce of 26,47% againts the carbon emission disclosure, while the rest 54.5% is the magnitude of the influence exerted contribution by other factors that not examined in this research for examples exposure media, operational coverage of the company, and environmental performance.
Full-text available
Concerns about climate change as a result of anthropic actions have led to an increase in the volume of information disclosed about it in the reports of companies that are members of the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP). In this context, the factors most disclosed remain obscure due to both the complexity of climate change impacts and the stakeholders’ different interests. This study aims to identify which factors are most disclosed in the reports of companies that are members of CDP. For this purpose, it is necessary to investigate if the factors indicated by managers and experts are the main ones disclosed in the reports of Brazilian companies that are members of CDP, as well as to identify which companies stand out in climate change disclosure based on these factors. To this end, 463 reports submitted by 48 companies between 2014 and 2016 were examined and 32 factors were investigated using the NVivo® software. Some companies submitted reports with unified titles, which reduced the sample. The results indicate that certain factors—prevention of pollution, prevention of loss, management of environmental assets, volume of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and climate change strategy—account for 50.03% of the total volume of information disclosed about climate change. The main lesson learned from this research is that climate change mitigation strategy is strongly supported by the evidence of corporate annual reports, and it has relation with the following determinant factors: pollution prevention, loss prevention, environmental asset management, GHG emissions, and the strategy chosen by the companies to deal with climate change. Due to the low volume of research related to loss prevention and pollution prevention, we have identified that little attention has been paid to these items. Based on our results, we recommend that climate change mitigation strategies begin to consider these determinant factors in their structure because both have a strong influence in demonstrating how companies are managing these factors for stakeholders. Therefore, companies can benefit from this data to manage their resources for the maintenance of the social contract (legitimacy) through the factors most disclosed, especially companies with lower scores on the scale of ranking presented. Hence, stakeholders can have access to more information on strategies that mitigate climate change and help companies improve the disclosure of the actions that contribute to reduction of GHG emissions.
In this article we investigate the impact of the Carbon Disclosure Project, as one of the binding reporting standards on a firms' emissions. In particular, we focus on firms from the industrial sector and analyse whether reporting to Carbon Disclosure Project has a positive effect and leads the firm to reduce their CO2 emissions. In order to evaluate this effect we use a relatively new method called 'synthetic control approach', which allows us not only to measure the impact of the firms' policy, but also to evaluate the significance of our estimates. Based on a unique database we constructed, we found that with the exception of three firms, there was no significant effect on the firms' emissions.