Access to this full-text is provided by Taylor & Francis.
Content available from Cogent Social Sciences
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
GEOGRAPHY | REVIEW ARTICLE
COGENT SOCIAL SCIENCES
2025, VOL. 11, NO. 1, 2453899
What do we know about carbon disclosure? A bibliometric analysis
Doddy Setiawana , Arif Santosob , Andi Asrihapsaric , Rayenda Khresna Brahmanad
and Amar Hisham Jaaare
aDepartment of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta, Indonesia; bMaster of
Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta, Indonesia; cSchool of Vocational,
Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta, Indonesia; dSchool of Economics, Finance and Accounting, Coventry University, Coventry,
United Kingdom; eInstitute of Energy Policy & Research (IEPRe), Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Selangor, Malaysia
ABSTRACT
Climate change is a global risk that drives extensive research, including carbon
disclosure. Although the field has grown significantly over the past two decades, there
are remains gaps in comprehensive reviews. Therefore, this review aimed to provide an
updated summary of the literature on carbon disclosure. A total of 278 articles were
selected from the Scopus database, covering the period from 2004 to 2024. Co-author
and co-word analyses were conducted using VOSViewer and Bibliometrix R-Packages.
The review successfully identified the most relevant authors, sources, countries, and
affiliations related to carbon disclosure. It also analyzed the intellectual structure,
influential journal, thematic evolution, trend topics, and selective data sources, as well
as theoretical foundations in the field. Several investigations have focused on evaluating
some aspects of disclosure such as its quantity and quality, determinants, as well as
beneficial effects. The current review identified the most relevant topics for future
surveys, including companies governance and greenwashing. Additionally, it contributed
to the existing body of empirical literature by providing an updated summary and
addressing the gaps and limitations in previous investigations, particularly in
methodology, data acquisition, and review methods.
1. Introduction
The global population faces a risk of climate change due to mitigation and adaptation failure (World
Economic Forum, 2023). Despite various initiatives, the current condition of climate change is becoming
increasingly alarming. In fact, it has gained significant attention, and there is a lot of pressure on industry
and academia to participate in mitigating the risks of climate change. In response to this call for action,
the concept of sustainability has gained attention across various disciplines.
The concept of sustainability, particularly through the framework of the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs), is critical in addressing climate change. The SDGs provide a comprehensive framework for
reducing carbon emissions and promoting environmental stewardship (Hasan et al., 2020). Among the
SDGs, Goal 13 calls for urgent action to mitigate climate change and its effects (United Nations, 2022).
Carbon disclosure, which constitutes the transparent reporting of greenhouse gas emissions, is closely
linked to these goals. By disclosing carbon emissions, companies show great commitment to reducing
their environmental footprint and contribute to global efforts to achieve the SDGs (Poole, 2022). This
practice enhances companies accountability and supports the broader development agenda by enhanc-
ing the adoption of low-carbon practices, improving energy efficiency, and fostering innovations that are
both economically and environmentally sustainable in the long term.
© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT Doddy Setiawan doddy.setiawan@sta.uns.ac.id Department of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas
Sebelas Maret, Surakarta, Indonesia
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2025.2453899
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been
published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 7 June 2024
Revised 5 November
2024
Accepted 9 January 2025
KEYWORDS
Carbon disclosure;
bibliometric;
sustainability; corporate
governance; rm value
SUBJECTS
Business, Management
and Accounting;
Corporate Governance;
Corporate Social
Responsibility & Business
Ethics
2 D. SETIAWAN ETAL.
The SDGs collaborate with the Triple Bottom Line concept by Elkington (1998), which shows the bal-
ance between three main aspects, including People, Planet, and Profits. The concept shows sustainability
literature in the business context, suggesting the need for companies to consider their environmental
impact to ensure long-term economic sustainability (Esfahbodi et al., 2016). Carbon emissions are a crit-
ical environmental issue in this context, significantly contributing to climate change, and companies
need to take responsibility for mitigating such impact (Benlemlih & Yavaş, 2024) to gain social accep-
tance and credibility (Scott, 2014).
The rise of carbon emission problems also has also attracted the attention of governments and other
regulators, prompting new policies and regulations to promote carbon disclosure by companies (Freedman
& Jaggi, 2010). Firstly, mandatory greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions showed that many countries have
established regulations that require firms to report their emissions annually. This includes the European
Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), the UK mandatory carbon reporting regulation, and the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Secondly, climate-related financial disclosure frameworks.
The regulatory bodies and stock exchanges in some countries have introduced frameworks that require
firms to disclose climate change-related risks and opportunities in financial reporting. This includes the
recommendations and regulations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). Third
is carbon pricing mechanisms, where some countries implement pricing mechanisms, such as taxes or
cap and trade systems, that incentivize firms to reduce emissions and disclose relevant data. For exam-
ple, the EU ETS, California’s Cap-and-Trade Program, and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)
in the United States. Fourth, there are sustainability reporting requirements, such as the Global Reporting
Initiative (GRI) standards and the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), which firms have widely used to dis-
close carbon. Lastly, there are sector-specific regulations that govern policies, including power plant and
vehicle emission standards, as well as carbon intensity targets for the industrial sector. Morever, in 2015,
196 countries joined the Paris Agreement and expressed their commitment to transparent and account-
able reporting of carbon emissions.
Therefore, carbon disclosure has become an endeavor that reflects the firm’s commitment to transpar-
ency and accountability regarding emissions and environmental impacts. In the academic context, global
attention has been directed toward exploring the economic benefits of carbon disclosure. Previous liter-
ature has contributed by exploring the effect of carbon disclosure on financial performance (Desai etal.,
2022; Khunkaew et al., 2023), firm value (Mahmudah et al., 2023), reputation (Khalid et al., 2024), and
stock price (Griffin etal., 2017; Jaggi etal., 2017). Furthermore, carbon disclosure is empirically associated
with a lower cost of capital (Gerged et al., 2021; Nguyen et al., 2023). Since stakeholders increasingly
prioritize environmental considerations and understand the benefits, carbon disclosure plays an import-
ant role in fostering trust, guiding investment decisions, and promoting sustainable business practices (Y.
S. Liu et al., 2023; Siddique et al., 2021; Wahyuningrum et al., 2024).
The interest has followed the significant increase in regulations and to explore the relationship
between regulatory context and carbon disclosure. This includes the TCFD framework in climate report-
ing in the air transportation sector (David & Giordano-Spring, 2022), the impact of regulators and corpo-
rate governance (Kurnia etal., 2020; Saha & Khan, 2024), marked-based regulation and carbon disclosure
(Siddique et al., 2024), ratiefied in the Kyoto Protocol (Freedman & Jaggi, 2005), regulatory and social
pressure (Abdul Majid et al., 2023; Gonzalez-Gonzalez & Zamora Ramírez, 2016), the urgency of
self-regulations (J. Ma & Kuo, 2021), and the importance of each country to make specific regulations
related to carbon information reporting (Mateo-Márquez et al., 2019; Park et al., 2023).
A review on carbon disclosure shows that academic interest in this area has increased yearly. However,
the review remains fragmented, with scattered results and limited synthesis in the existing literature to
draw the latest conclusions regarding the development of carbon disclosure. Therefore, synthesizing
existing literature into a cohesive overview is necessary to guide further investigation directions. For
instance, a bibliometric analysis can help analysts develop new review, investigate current trends, and
show under-examined themes in related fields (Mushtaq et al., 2023).
Several investigations on related topics, such as carbon disclosure, carbon accounting, carbon perfor-
mance, and carbon emissions, have been conducted (K. Ali etal., 2024; W. Ali etal., 2024; Borghei, 2021;
Briš et al., 2024; Csutora & Harangozo, 2017; Gibassier et al., 2020; Hahn et al., 2015; He et al., 2022;
Hettler & Graf-Vlachy, 2024; Kiswanto etal., 2023; Kuriawan etal., 2022; Sitompul etal., 2023; Stechemesser
COGENT SOCIAL SCIENCES 3
& Guenther, 2012; Truant et al., 2024; Velte et al., 2020; Wahyuningrum et al., 2023; Wang, 2023; Yadiati
et al., 2024). However, the investigations have several limitations, including firstly, the use of a limited
range of keywords. The use of keywords in a bibliometric review is crucial because it determines the
accessibility of relevant articles. Previous investigations have typically focused on keywords such as car-
bon accounting, which covers only scope 3 carbon emissions, Environment, Social, and Governance (ESG)
disclosure, and specific countries (Briš et al., 2024; Gibassier et al., 2020; Hettler & Graf-Vlachy, 2024;
Kiswanto et al., 2023; Kuriawan et al., 2022; Stechemesser & Guenther, 2012; Wahyuningrum et al., 2023;
Yadiati et al., 2024). Secondly, the existing literature often limits its focus on carbon disclosure
topics, including life cycle thinking, supply chain, earnings management, companies governance mecha-
nisms, carbon risk, and auditing (K. Ali et al., 2024; W. Ali etal., 2024; Csutora & Harangozo, 2017; Truant
et al., 2024; Velte et al., 2020; Wang, 2023).
Thirdly, other investigations on carbon disclosure have their own set of limitations. For instance, Hahn
et al. (2015) used the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) and EBSCO databases with the keywords “dis-
clos* and report*” to identify reporting or communication terms, potentially excluding articles that used
terms such as carbon performance, carbon statement, and carbon accounting. Sitompul etal. (2023) did
not use the term disclosure, limited the search to specific countries, and adopted a search formula “…
“carbon performance” AND “performanc*” AND “financial” that might have led to overlapping and limited
the number of articles related to carbon disclosure in the Scopus database. He et al. (2022) only relied
on the Australian Business Dean Council (ABDC) journal list, while Borghei (2021) exclusively used the
Web of Sciences (WoS) database in February 2020. Ma et al. (2023) using keywords, such as “firm*”;
“carbon* OR disclosure*”; and “carbon disclosure project”. However, the study did not use keywords such
as carbon performance, carbon reporting, and GHG emission, which are some of the keywords close to
the topic of carbon disclosure. The study also analyzed each cluster. Lastly, there was the issue of year
coverage, which affected the ability to capture the latest developments in the literature on carbon
disclosure.
Bowen and Wittneben (2011) defined carbon accounting as the measurement of carbon emissions,
the collection of carbon data, and its communication within and outside the companies. Therefore, this
review specifically focuses on the aspect of communication or reporting of carbon emissions, commonly
referred to as carbon disclosure. It also includes various Business, Management, and Accounting journals
in the Scopus database regarding carbon disclosure published until August 2024. The review does not
exclude non-accounting journals, such as the Journal of Cleaner Production, provided the articles address
carbon disclosure in companies’ context. Additionally, it broadens the range of keywords to cover various
aspects of carbon literature and disclosure practices by companies, including the analytical methods
used. This review discuss carbon disclosure trends using a bibliometric analysis tool such as R Studio
(Biblioshiny) and VOSviewer.
This review contributes to the expanding literature on carbon disclosure and formulates several ques-
tions (RQ) for further investigation.
RQ1. What are the current publication trends in carbon disclosure in terms of time, journals, authors,
aliated countries and institutions?
RQ2. Which are the inuential studies and themes of research in this domain?
RQ3. What is the intellectual structure of carbon disclosure research, how has it evolved over the years
and what are the recent research trends in this domain?
RQ4. What are the gaps and areas for future research?
The purpose of this study is to identify and describe trends, developments, and areas for future
research on carbon disclosure. We used all relevant articles in Scopus and did not use time framing like
some previous review studies. This study formulates four research questions as mentioned above, and by
answering these questions this study contributes to the carbon disclosure literature in several ways. First,
this is the updated bibliometric analysis of the academic literature on carbon disclosure. Second, this
study fills the gap of previous empirical studies and systematic literature reviews, especially regarding
topic coverage, year, source, and specific analysis. Third, it identifies the drivers of the development of
carbon disclosure studies. Fourth, it provides a comprehensive summary through bibliometric analysis
4 D. SETIAWAN ETAL.
and provides recommendations for future research. This study identifies topics for future research through
big data analysis of previously published literature. We also present some of the key theories that under-
pin the development of carbon disclosure studies.
The analysis is organized as follows: Section 2 discusses the method, Section 3 presents the results
and discussion to answer the research questions, and Section 4 draws the conclusions.
2. Methods
This study used a bibliometric analysis to achieve the objectives. Furthermore, bibliometric analysis was
applied to previously published literature (Ellegaard & Wallin, 2015), such as the Scopus database. There
is a debate in the literature regarding the comparison of Scopus and Web of Science (WoS). Moreover,
Scopus has several advantages and provides a more comprehensive database of quality articles from
major publishers (Alves & Mariano, 2018; Ochoa etal., 2019). WoS has good article quality and respected
citation sources, although Scopus provides a better representation of the literature, covering many jour-
nals, specifically in the social and humanities domains (Paul etal., 2021; Pranckutė, 2021; Setiawan etal.,
2023). It also provides advanced search and filtering options, up-to-date information, and comprehensive
citation analysis (De Giuli et al., 2024), making it suitable for bibliometric reviews (Abhilash et al., 2023;
Antwi et al., 2022). Scopus applies strict indexation requirements for quality publications, which increase
the reliability of the content; however, Google Scholar does not. For these reasons, Scopus was used due
to data availability and better compatibility with R Studio and VOSviewer (Dervis, 2019).
This study adopted the stages by Xu and Liu (2023), which included (1) literature data acquisition, (2)
data processing, and (3) statistics, mapping, and finding review.
2.1. Literature data acquisition
The data acquisition process followed the PRISMA protocol consisting of identification, screening, eligi-
bility, and inclusion (Hansen et al., 2022; Lim et al., 2022), as shown in Figure 1. This process was vali-
dated by three reviewers. The Scopus database was exclusively used, which identified relevant articles
with several search keywords: carbon terms = (“carbon”; or “carbon information”; or “greenhouse gas
emission*”; or “greenhouse gas”; or “GHG emission*”; or “emission”; or “GHG”; or “CO2”; or “global warm-
ing”; or “carbon disclosure project”; or “carbon emission*”; or “scope* 1 emission*”; or “scope* 2 emis-
sion*”; or “scope* 3 emission*”; or “carbon Footprint”; or “voluntary carbon”; or “greenwashing”) AND
disclosure terms = (“report*”; or “disclos*”; or “statement*”; or “performance”; or “accounting”).
To obtain articles or data relevant to the topic of carbon disclosure, several characters were used.
Firstly, quotation marks (“…”) were used to search for specific phrases, ensuring that only exact matches
were found, such as “carbon information” would only match the phrase “carbon information”. Secondly,
the wildcard character (*) was adopted to capture variations of a search term, and for instance, disclos*
would match “disclosure” and “disclosing”. Thirdly, the character (OR) was used to obtain articles contain-
ing at least one of the specified terms. Lastly, the character (AND) was adopted to ensure that both
terms were present, particularly in the query “carbon” AND “disclos*”, which would match phrases such
as “carbon disclosure”, “carbon disclosing”, and “carbon disclose”.
Based on these keywords, 1,105,452 articles were found and a screening process was conducted. The
screening stage considered subject area, language, source, and document type. Articles used were only
in the areas of Business, Management, and Accounting as the focus of carbon disclosure. This study
analyzed articles in English according to the expertise, and the incorporation of multiple languages in
the bibliometric analysis may cause bias (Gulluscio et al., 2020; Stechemesser & Guenther, 2012).
Furthermore, publications in the form of books, chapters, and proceedings were excluded because they
do not contribute significantly to empirical and theoretical discussions (Tautiva et al., 2024), and are
generally weak in peer review. Therefore, this study only uses articles from journals in the form of articles
and reviews. This screening process, 52,312 articles were eliminated.
The screening process was not fully capable of selecting relevant articles; hence, the eligibility stage
was conducted. This stage conducted professional justification on keywords, title, abstract, and content
COGENT SOCIAL SCIENCES 5
analysis. All titles and abstracts were reviewed, and when necessary, the full text was used to obtain
articles relevant to the review objectives. Articles were excluded when they focused on aspects of carbon
emissions that were irrelevant to the context of companies reporting or disclosure, such as those dis-
cussing the calculation of CO2 emissions efficiency, CO2 emissions by households, or the rehabilitation
of carbon-sensitive land. Since this review relied heavily on a bibliometric data to identify trends and
gaps in carbon disclosure literature, error checking was conducted using R Studio to ensure the usability
of the data for all articles. Quality criteria such as journal ranking (Financial Times Top 50 Journal con-
ducted by Hettler & Graf-Vlachy, 2024), were not used for exclusion purposes, as the review aimed to
provide a comprehensive overview of carbon disclosure field. Alternatively, the quality of the articles was
ensured by relying on the leading database, Scopus. In the eligibility stage, 635 articles were eliminated.
The inclusion stage was conducted by checking validation, publication statistics, and bibliometric analysis
of 278 selected articles. Three reviewers validated and confirmed the entire process to ensure robustness
and validity, as shown in Figure 1. This was carried out to ensure the analysis was structured and could
be adopted in future surveys.
Final search query (August 2024):
(TITLE (“carbon”; OR “carbon information”; OR “greenhouse gas emission*”; OR “greenhouse gas”; OR
“GHG emission*”; OR “emission”; OR “GHG”; OR “CO2”; OR “global warming”; OR “carbon disclosure proj-
ect”; OR “carbon emission*”; OR “scope* 1 emission*”; OR “scope* 2 emission*”; OR “scope* 3 emis-
sion*”; OR “carbon Footprint”; OR “voluntary carbon”; OR “greenwashing”) AND TITLE (“report*”; OR
“disclos*”; OR “statement*”; OR “performance”; OR “accounting”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “BUSI”))
AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (SRCTYPE, “j”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”) OR
LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “re”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Environmental Management”) OR LIMIT-TO
(EXACTKEYWORD, “Environmental Performance”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Carbon Performance”)
Figure 1. Articles inclusion/exclusion owchart.
Source: Authors Compilation.
6 D. SETIAWAN ETAL.
OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Carbon Accounting”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Carbon Disclosure”)
OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Disclosure”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Corporate Social
Responsibility”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Carbon Emission Disclosure”) OR LIMIT-TO
(EXACTKEYWORD, “Carbon Disclosure Project”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Voluntary Disclosure”)
OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Information Disclosure”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Carbon
Disclosures”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Sustainability Reporting”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD,
“Environmental Disclosure”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Carbon Management”) OR LIMIT-TO
(EXACTKEYWORD, “Emissions Performance”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Carbon Reporting”) OR
LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Accounting”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “ESG”) OR LIMIT-TO
(EXACTKEYWORD, “Corporate Strategy”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Greenwashing”))
2.2. Data processing
Data processing is a method of bibliometric analysis based on the selected data of 278 articles. This
study used VOSviewer and Bibliometrix R-Package (Biblioshiny) by R Studio for the analysis (Aria &
Cuccurullo, 2017) as well as co-word and co-authorship analyses. The assumption is that when words
often appear together, it indicates a close relationship (Zupic & Čater, 2015). Moreover, co-word analysis
was used to identify concepts through co-occurring terms based on keywords. It was also used to under-
stand the topics covered, identify important and current issues, and potential future studies. Co-authorship
was used to show network collaborations and identify leading authors. This review used Biblioshiny to
analyze various aspects, including annual scientific production, authors analysis (authors, institutions, and
countries information), sources analysis (production and most relevant sources), trend topics, influential
journals, conceptual structures (co-occurrence networks, thematic maps, and thematic evolution), as well
as social structures (collaboration network) (RQ1, RQ2, and RQ4). Meanwhile, VOSviewer was used to
examine the intellectual structure of the field, focusing on citation and co-citation analysis (RQ3).
2.3. Data statistics, mapping, and nding review
Based on co-word and co-authorship analysis, the results were mapped in statistics and visual represen-
tation in tables and figures to describe the development and contribution of carbon disclosure literature.
In addition, the various findings were analyzed to answer the research questions and make recommen-
dations for further research.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. General characteristics of literature
Table 1 shows the general characteristics of the literature analyzed. A total of 278 documents were
assessed from 103 academic journals. Furthermore, the documents were published between 2004 and
2024, with an average annual growth of 22.51%. The documents used were 708 keywords and 807
author keywords. The 278 articles were published by 664 authors, with 27 produced by a single author.
International authorship showed significant international collaboration, reaching 32.37%, and co-authors
per document, reaching 2.94, indicating that more than two authors write the average document.
Figure 2 illustrates the annual performance. This study found that 2004 was the first year carbon dis-
closure analysis began, and there were no publications during 2006–2008. However, there were 1 publi-
cation in 2009 and 2010, and increased significantly in 2011 with 5 publications which coincided with
the established Sustainability Accounting Standard Board (SASB), which provides accounting standards
for identifying, managing, and reporting firm sustainability practices. Subsequently, publications fluctu-
ated until 2014. The Paris Agreement and TCFD framework in 2015, which focused on climate-related
financial disclosures, marked an important moment for transparency and reporting climate change initia-
tives such as carbon disclosure. Since then, carbon disclosure articles have significantly increased, peak-
ing in 2024 with 58 documents. The increase in publications also corresponded with the Sustainable
Development Goals Report 2022, which emphasized that climate change was the biggest global risk
COGENT SOCIAL SCIENCES 7
(United Nations, 2022). This showed that experts were responsive to environmental problems, as indi-
cated by the significant increase in publications after the release of various frameworks and reports that
support carbon disclosure. Legal requirements for sustainability reporting, such as the GRI, also increased
the urgency of studies on carbon reporting. Furthermore, corporate governance plays an important role
in driving carbon disclosure. Amid increasing stakeholder concerns, corporate governance plays a key
role in ensuring that firms meet the information needs of stakeholders, improve the quality of reports,
and relate with sustainable practices (Houqe & Khan, 2023; Muktadir-Al-Mukit & Bhaiyat, 2024). Investors’
pressure also plays a role, as they are increasingly interested in information to make investment decisions
(Calza et al., 2016; Jaggi et al., 2017; Shan et al., 2021). Lastly, technological advancements and data
availability help academics conduct in-depth analyses, increasing their understanding of the topic.
3.1.1. General characteristics of sources
Table 2 shows the performance of journals and their contribution to the development of carbon disclo-
sure literature. 20 of the most prestigious journals and publishers have published more at least on car-
bon disclosure. Furthermore, Journal of Cleaner Production was the leading publication on this topic,
with 56 articles and 3,560 total citations. Previous literature review studies such as those conducted by
He et al. (2022) excluded non-accounting journals such as the Journal of Clenaer Production. Business
Table 1. Summary of the key characteristics of the 278 articles analyzed.
Description Results
MAIN INFORMATION ABOUT DATA
Timespan 2004:2024
Sources (Journals, Books, etc) 103
Documents 278
Annual Growth Rate % 22.51
Document Average Age 4.19
Average citations per doc 48.39
References 1
DOCUMENT CONTENTS
Keywords Plus (ID) 708
Author’s Keywords (DE) 807
AUTHORS
Authors 664
Authors of single-authored docs 27
AUTHORS COLLABORATION
Single-authored docs 28
Co-Authors per Doc 2.94
International co-authorships % 32.37
DOCUMENT TYPES
Article 265
article article 2
Review 11
Source: Processed using bibliometrix R-package (Biblioshiny), 2024.
Figure 2. Document by year of publication.
Source: Authors compilation, 2024.
8 D. SETIAWAN ETAL.
Strategy and the Environment ranked second with 38 publications and 2,127 citations. Although the
Journal of Business Ethics has published only 8 articles, it has been cited 1,265 times. This made the
journal to become one of the most influential journals in the literature on carbon disclosure. The 20
journals presented in Table 2 accounted for more than half (65.83%) of the total publications in this field,
contributing greatly to the development of carbon disclosure analysis. There were 83 other journals that
published 1-2 article each.
3.1.2. General characteristics of authors – most active countries
Table 3 presented the most productive countries on the topic of carbon disclosure, with China leading
in the number of publications (N = 104). Australia (N = 82) and the USA (N = 49) occupied the second and
third positions, respectively. These three countries were also the top contributors in terms of citations,
collectively garnering over 1,500 citations in the past two decades. Furthermore, China contributed more
than half (37.41%) of the total publications on this topic, showing that the country had a strong aca-
demic and literature infrastructure, funding resources, as well as high demand for carbon disclosure
analysis.
The country has been the most prolific in the research of carbon disclosure due to several factors.
First is rapid industrialization and economic growth, with increased awareness of the environmental
impacts of industrial activities, prompting greater interest in carbon disclosure to monitor and mitigate
these impacts. Second is the commitment to address climate change as demonstrated by participation
in the Paris Agreement. In addition, China’s growing effect on the global economy has put pressure on
firms to improve environmental performance and transparency, therefore driving the adoption of carbon
disclosure practices.
The country has also implemented various regulations and initiatives aimed at promoting transpar-
ency and accountability in reporting carbon emissions, such as the “Plan for the Reform of the Legal
Table 2. Most relevant journals.
Journals Articles Total Citations
Journal of Cleaner Production 56 3560
Business Strategy and the Environment 38 2127
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 12 328
Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 11 400
Accounting and Finance 9 562
Journal of Business Ethics 8 1265
Social Responsibility Journal 6 76
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 5 434
Meditari Accountancy Research 4 49
Organization and Environment 4 346
Accounting Forum 3 212
Accounting Research Journal 3 234
British Accounting Review 3 387
China Journal of Accounting Studies 3 65
Cogent Business and Management 3 3
Corporate Ownership and Control 3 10
Eurasian Business Review 3 30
Journal of Applied Accounting Research 3 57
Journal of Environmental Accounting and Management 3 8
Research in International Business and Finance 3 327
Source: Processed using bibliometrix R-package (Biblioshiny), 2024.
Table 3. Most productive countries.
Countries Publications TC Countries Publications TC
Australia 82 2184 Greece 11 185
Usa 49 1565 Brazil 15 170
China 104 1519 New Zealand 10 150
United Arab Emirates 6 1483 South Korea 2 149
Germany 34 1405 Indonesia 28 125
France 28 590 Spain 13 122
Sweden 2 270 Canada 17 101
Italy 18 244 Romania 1 101
Japan 5 209 Austria 2 97
Kuwait 6 208 Hungary 3 97
Source: Processed using bibliometrix R-package (Biblioshiny), 2024.
COGENT SOCIAL SCIENCES 9
Disclosure System of Environmental Information” by the Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE) in
2021, the voluntary reporting framework (Environmental Data Reporting Platform), and the inclusion of
environmental considerations in corporate governance guidelines and sustainability reporting standards.
Overall, the proactive approach to environmental regulations and commitment to sustainability has
played an important role in driving carbon disclosure practices in the country.
Figure 3 visualized cross-country review collaboration, a key driver for several countries to become
leaders in carbon disclosure discussions. The collaboration network consisted of 10 clusters based on
countries representing specific fields within the discussions. Australia, China, and the USA have estab-
lished proactive cross-country review collaboration, which was expected to stimulate further growth in
the topic and enhance the productivity of these countries.
Figure 4 illustrates the citation analysis by country in carbon disclosure research. Citation analysis
indicates the occurrence of an article in other document (Pasadeos et al., 1998). In this visualization,
countries are depicted as nodes, with their size reflecting the prominence of each country’s contribution
to carbon disclosure research. For example, Australia and China have prominent nodes, indicating that
both countries have made significant contributions to the evolving academic discourse on carbon
Figure 3. Country collaboration networks.
Source: Processed using bibliometrix R-package (Biblioshiny), 2024.
Figure 4. Citation network by country.
Source: Processed using VOSviewer, 2024.
10 D. SETIAWAN ETAL.
disclosure. These countries also demonstrate strong interconnectedness, as the connecting line between
the Australian and Chinese nodes is thicker than those between other countries. This network structure
reveals the pivotal role of certain countries in disseminating research and potentially influencing global
policies on environmental transparency and corporate sustainability, particularly related to carbon
emissions.
3.1.3. General characteristics of authors – most active universities
In more specific terms, Table 4 presents the top productive universities. The first was Macquarie University
(Australia), which has published 14 articles. The second was Western Sydney University (Australia), which
had 10 articles. The University of South Australia and Universitat Hamburg were ranked third, each with
seven articles, while Kedge Business School was ranked fourth, with over five publications. It was shown
that 16 affiliates have published articles on carbon disclosure at least 4 documents, and 395 have con-
tributed to the literature, each with at least one article. As shown in Figure 5, various universities collab-
orated to improve the quality of the review and contribute to global carbon emission reduction efforts.
This showed carbon disclosure has attracted the attention of various universities globally regarding the
urgency of mitigating carbon-related risks and climate change adaptation.
Macquarie University was recognized as a leading institution in the literature on carbon disclosure,
showcasing a strong commitment to participate in mitigating climate change risks. Since 2014, its
Campus Masterplan has set sustainability targets for reducing energy use, emissions, water consumption,
and waste (Macquarie University, 2022). In addition to promoting carbon disclosure literature, the univer-
sity actively participated in carbon management through its official website. For instance, in 2022,
Macquarie University reported total emissions of 3,191 tonnes CO2e (Scope 1) and 1,410 tonnes CO2e
(Scope 2). This provided an illustration of how universities could serve as both review centers and role
models for carbon management initiatives.
In late 2021, Western Sydney University joined the Race to Zero for Universities and Colleges led by
the United Nations to accelerate carbon neutrality targets to tackle climate change. The University set
Table 4. Top productive universities.
University Freq University Freq
Macquarie University 14 University School of Financial Studies 5
Western Sydney University 10 Grith University 4
University of South Australia 7Qatar University 4
Universität Hamburg 7Towson University 4
Kedge Business School 6University ot the Witwatersrand 4
Massey University 5University Of Western Sydney 4
Nanjing University of Finance and Economics 5Western Macedonia University of Applied Sciences 4
University Of Newcastle 5Zhongnan University of Economics and Law 4
Source: Processed using bibliometrix R-package (Biblioshiny), 2024.
Figure 5. Universities collaboration networks.
Source: Processed using bibliometrix R-package (Biblioshiny), 2024.
COGENT SOCIAL SCIENCES 11
ambitious targets for carbon neutrality in 2023 as well as climate and nature positive in 2029. In 2023,
Western Sydney University was certified carbon neutral for business operations under Climate Active. This
showed that universities can play an active role in addressing carbon emissions through research and
various initiatives that motivate faculty members.
3.1.4. General characteristics of authors – most active authors
Table 5 shows the leading authors on the topic of carbon disclosure. Tang Q leads in the most publica-
tions (N = 11), and leads in the most citations (N = 798). Pada posisi kedua yaitu Luo L dengan 10 pub-
likasi artikel dan 711 kali sitasi. These two authors have contributed more than 37.92% of the total
citations among th most relevant authors in Table 5. Furthermore, the most influential article in the area
of carbon emissions, authored by Tang Q, was published in 2014 and had been cited 253 times. The
article discussed the effect of carbon disclosure on carbon performance as well as identified a significant
positive relationship between the two (Luo & Tang, 2014b). Luo L’s most cited article (N = 268 cited) dis-
cussed the relationship between social pressure, financial market pressure, economic pressure, and reg-
ulatory/institutional pressure on carbon disclosure using a sample of Global 500 firms (Luo et al., 2012).
Table 5 presents the leading authors on carbon disclosure research, providing significant insights for
academics and practitioners. Then, Figure 6 presented citation networks among various authors, with Luo
Table 5. Most relevant authors.
Authors Articles TC H-Index
Tang Q 11 798 11
Luo L 10 711 9
Bedi A 5 4 1
Houqe Mn 5 222 4
Li W 5 207 4
Schiemann F 5 476 5
Singh B 5 4 1
Giannarakis G 4 193 4
Qian W 4 337 3
Salama A 4 211 3
Sariannidis N 4 193 4
Schaltegger S 4 600 4
Zhang Y 4 16 2
Source: Processed using bibliometrix R-package (Biblioshiny), 2024.
Figure 6. Citation network by authors.
Source: Processed using VOSviewer, 2024.
12 D. SETIAWAN ETAL.
becoming the most cited author in various articles related to carbon disclosure. Based on the explana-
tion, it could be concluded that Luo was one of the main reference authors in developing carbon dis-
closure literature. Authors with the highest number of publications and citations often benefited from
the review collaboration. For instance, the correlation between Tang Q and Luo L, made them to be
engaged in several investigations, as shown in Figure 7. The main conclusion of this review was that
standardized ESG reporting through the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) served as a soft substitute for
promoting green initiatives in companies lacking awareness of global warming.
Figure 7 presents the collaboration between authors. Based on the illustration, 12 clusters were rep-
resented by several colors, such as red, purple, orange, brown, green, light blue, and blue. The clusters
showed the grouping of authors based on research interests in carbon disclosure analysis. The figure
informs two things, namely the level of interaction density (nodes/circles) and the relationship between
authors (edges/connecting lines between nodes). Meanwhile, the size of the nodes was based on the
frequency of occurrence of keywords or authors (Donthu et al., 2021). The larger node showed that the
author co-occurs with others in many articles, indicating the intensity of collaboration. Edges provided
information on how close the research focus is between authors. The closer and thicker the connecting
line, the more likely the two authors will be associated with the same research. For example, Q. Tang has
the largest nodes with 11 published articles, along with others. Furthermore, Q. Tang has a strong edge
with L. Luo, as they have collaboratively published 8 articles. The recent articles they published examined
the relationship of ESG reporting and GRI standars on carbon mitigation (Luo & Tang, 2023). The main
conclusion of the study is that standardized ESG reporting, facilitated by the GRI, serves as a soft substi-
tute in promoting green initiatives within organizations that lack sufficient awareness of global warming.
3.2. The inuential studies and themes of research
To provide information on the most relevant articles, this study presented a review of the 18 most cited
articles as shown in Table 6. The most cited articles were reported by year of publication to limit the
potential impact of document age on citation counts. This analysis provided information and insights
into which articles are identified as most relevant by peer authors. The manuscripts presented were
those primarily referenced by carbon disclosure studies. Therefore, they are likely to shape the relevant
literature in the future. In general, the most frequently referenced articles were studies on the determi-
nants and consequences of carbon disclosure, and greenwashing. However, therea are two review articles
on carbon disclosure was identified.
This review identified eight articles that examine the determinants of carbon disclosure, including ID
3, ID 5, ID 7, ID 9, ID 10, ID 11, ID 12, and ID 14. Additionally, it examined various factors influencing
carbon disclosure, carbon emissions, and financial performance among companies. The results showed
that green research and development negatively affected carbon emissions as well as positively affected
the financial performance of companies (K. H. Lee & Min, 2015). Furthermore, companies from countries
Figure 7. Authors collaboration networks.
Source: Processed using bibliometrix R-package (Biblioshiny), 2024.
COGENT SOCIAL SCIENCES 13
that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, particularly larger companies, were more likely to engage in carbon
disclosure (Bae Choi et al., 2013; Freedman & Jaggi, 2005). The results also showed that adopting stan-
dards, such as ISO 14001, did not necessarily improve environmental performance. When climate change
targets did not directly affect environmental performance, they tended to have lower emissions (Dahlmann
et al., 2019; Russo, 2009). Moreover, the adoption of blockchain technology did not significantly affect
carbon performance, possibly due to a lack of competitive pressure from rival companies and insufficient
technical expertise (Fernando et al., 2021). Other investigations has examined the determinants of gre-
enwashing behavior and found that the presence of independent directors, institutional investors, regu-
latory systems, and cross-listing could minimize such practice.
Table 6. Overview of top-cited articles included in the analysis by citations per year.
ID Purpose Subject Methods Cited Reference
1Examine the eect of green research and
development on environment and nancial
performance.
Japanese manufacturing
rms (2001-2010)
Regression 677 (K. H. Lee & Min,
2015)
2Investigating selective disclosure practices based on
institutional theory.
4750 public companies
(2004-2007)
Regression 488 (Marquis et al.,
2016)
3Testing the eect of environmental legitimacy on
carbon disclosure with green innovation as a
mediating variable.
Carbon Disclosure
Project (CDP) in
China (2008-2012)
Regression 437 (D. Li et al., 2018)
4This study examines how green advertising and a
company’s environmental performance inuence
consumer attitudes toward the brand and their
intention to make a purchase.
302 students from large
university in th US
(2012)
Regression 371 (Nyilasy et al.,
2014)
5We explore strategies to comprehensively reduce
companies’ greenwashing practices across various
ESG dimensions.
1925 large market cap
rms
Regression 316 (E. P. yi Yu et al.,
2020)
6To examine how the selection of Corporate Social
Performance (CSP) metrics inuences the results
when analyzing the relationship between CSP and
Corporate Financial Performance (CFP).
2500 largest companies
(market cap) Dow
Jones Global Index
Ordinary Least
Square (OLS)
regressions
302 (Busch &
Homann,
2011)
7This study assesses how companies based in countries
that have ratied the Kyoto Protocol disclose
information about pollution and greenhouse gas
emissions, in comparison to companies in countries
that have not ratied the protocol.
120 largest public rms
(revenues)
Regression 287 (Freedman &
Jaggi, 2005)
8The objective of this paper is to establish a denition
of carbon accounting through a systematic review
of the literature, incorporating various perspectives
and research streams.
129 publications Review 242 (Stechemesser &
Guenther,
2012)
9Test the eect of carbon disclosure on carbon
performance.
Global 500 rm
(2008-2012)
Regression 197 (Qian &
Schaltegger,
2017)
10 This study seeks to document the level of voluntary
carbon emission disclosures made by major
Australian companies from 2006 - 2008.
Additionally, the paper aims to identify the factors
that explain the extent of these carbon disclosures.
Largest 100 Australian
rms (2006-2008)
Regression 197 (Bae Choi et al.,
2013)
11 Examine the impact of ISO 14001 on emission
performance.
1197 electornic
manufacturing
(1996-2001)
Regression 177 (Russo, 2009)
12 Examine the inuence of corporate climate change
targets on environmental performance.
1335 rm from 42
countries (2009-2014)
Regression 146 (Dahlmann et al.,
2019)
13 This paper discusses the progress made in research
on carbon accounting and highlights the existing
knowledge gaps in this eld.
117 papers in inuential
accounting journals
(2005-2018)
Systematic review 109 (He et al., 2022)
14 This paper explored the factors that drive the
adoption of blockchain technology and its impact
on carbon performance.
3194 Manufacture
companies (2019)
Structural equation
modelling (SEM)
97 (Fernando et al.,
2021)
15 Testing whether stakeholders’ legitimacy inuences
ESG performance, nancial performance, and its
relationship with greenwashing.
39 rms (2019) Structural equation
modelling (SEM)
93 (M. T. Lee &
Raschke, 2023)
16 This study examined how greenwashing impacts
corporate reputation and brand hate, and analyzed
the mediating roles of perceived environmental
performance and perceived green risk.
420 consumers Structural equation
modelling (SEM)
13 (Santos et al.,
2024)
17 The aim of this paper is to highlight a range of issues
and questions that academics and business
professionals are encountering in the technically
intricate area of greenhouse gas accounting.
Australia companies
(2009)
Literature analysis 9 (Young, 2010)
Source: Authors Compilation.
14 D. SETIAWAN ETAL.
Literature has investigated the benefits of carbon disclosure, showing that while carbon emissions
improve financial performance, carbon management practices might reduce it (Busch & Hoffmann, 2011;
Qian & Schaltegger, 2017). Nyilasy et al. (2014) found that environmental performance increased con-
sumer purchase intentions, with this effect strengthened by green advertising. When companies engaged
in greenwashing, there would be damage to their brand and reputation (Santos etal., 2024). Interestingly,
M. T. Lee and Raschke (2023) reported that greenwashing did not significantly affect financial perfor-
mance. Greenwashing remained a developing topic with limited empirical evidence, suggesting the need
for future examination.
Most highly cited review have focused on large manufacturing companies, while carbon disclosure
practices in the financial and banking sectors remained underexplored. Specifically, no literature on car-
bon disclosure in the banking sector appeared among the top-cited articles. This is because carbon
disclosure seemed like a costly behavior amid the urgency of mitigating climate change risks. Therefore,
this study recommended future surveys to consider the factors that drive firms to disclose carbon, as
well as promote strong regulation and stakeholder engagement to support this agenda.
Figure 8 presented the thematic evolution of carbon disclosure discussions over the past two decades,
from 2004 to 2024. The evolution was divided into four distinct periods. In the first period, from 2004 to
2017, several themes were developed, including carbon reporting, environmental disclosure, companies’
performance, carbon disclosure, carbon accounting, financial performance, and greenhouse gas emis-
sions. In the second period, from 2018 to 2021, new contexts, consisting of carbon performance, began
to take shape. For instance, Datt etal. (2019) analyzed 487 companies in the USA and found that carbon
disclosure was related to increased carbon performance. This was motivated by concerns about carbon
disclosure because companies might report less valid information related to carbon initiatives (Qian &
Schaltegger, 2017). Therefore, the focus began to shift from merely disclosing carbon information to the
context of carbon-related performance.
In the subsequent period, new themes, including greenwashing, were developed. Greenwashing
referred to making deceptive claims about the environmental benefits of companies’ products, practices,
or policies (Delmas & Burbano, 2011). This issue has recently received considerable attention, particularly
in relation to carbon disclosure. Carbon disclosure, which constituted reporting companies’ greenhouse
gas emissions and climate-related risks, was important for increasing transparency and accountability.
However, there were concerns that some companies might engage in greenwashing by selectively dis-
closing information or exaggerating their carbon reduction efforts to appear more environmentally
friendly (de Freitas Netto et al., 2020). These practices could undermine the credibility of genuine sus-
tainability efforts and distort market perceptions.
Recent literature has provided valuable insights into the dynamics and implications of greenwashing,
particularly in the context of companies’ sustainability practices. Greenwashing, which referred to the
practice of exaggerating companies’ environmental efforts, negatively affected various aspects of perfor-
mance and stakeholder perceptions. For instance, Birindelli et al. (2024) found that greenwashing
adversely affected banking performance, with board gender diversity moderating such a relationship.
Moreover, companies with lower ESG performance were more likely to engage in greenwashing practices
than those with higher ESG performance (M. T. Lee & Raschke, 2023). Greenwashing was also associated
Figure 8. Thematic evolution.
Source: Processed using bibliometrix R-package (Biblioshiny), 2024.
COGENT SOCIAL SCIENCES 15
with a higher risk of stock price declines, particularly when companies engaged in aggressive earnings
management (G. Liu et al., 2024). Additionally, it could damage companies’ reputations through per-
ceived environmental performance and green risk perceptions, leading to increased brand hostility
(Santos et al., 2024).
Literature showed that independent directors, institutional ownership, less corrupt national systems,
and cross-listing could prevent greenwashing practices (Yu et al., 2020). Uyar et al. (2020) also reported
that good Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) performance was generally associated with a lower like-
lihood of greenwashing. In developing countries, where information asymmetry was higher, stakeholders
might struggle to identify greenwashing. The presence of local regulations and negative media coverage
could help reduce this asymmetry, making greenwashing easier to identify (W. Li etal., 2023). Previous
investigations have reinforced that regulatory pressure on climate change played an important role in
curbing greenwashing practices (Mateo-Márquez etal., 2022). Conversely, in more liberal capital markets,
companies might use greenwashing as a strategy to attract foreign investors, suggesting the tactical use
of sustainability disclosure (Liu et al., 2024). Companies’ sustainability reporting could also function as a
form of impression management, potentially covering up practices such as tax avoidance (Nasih
et al., 2024).
In the last period, the topics of companies governance and gender diversity began to receive increased
attention. Gebhardt et al. (2024) found that governance factors had different effects on greenwashing,
but most were relatively weak. Meanwhile, gender diversity in top management has been shown to
significantly improve the quality of carbon disclosure. To motivate and enhance carbon performance
effectively, having at least three female directors on the board was recommended (Toukabri & Jilani, 2023).
3.3. The intellectual structure and the recent research trends in carbon disclosure research
Citation analysis was a method used to understand the intellectual structure of a particular field (Zupic
& Čater, 2015). Specifically, co-citation analysis showed the frequency of two articles being cited simul-
taneously (Mashayekhi et al., 2024). The method was based on the assumption that two articles cited
simultaneously likely addressed similar topics (Zupic & Čater, 2015). This review examined the intellectual
structure by exploring both co-citation network by reference and co-citation network by journals. A min-
imum threshold of 15 citations was set for the co-citation network by reference, while a threshold of 60
citations was used for the co-citation network by journals. These thresholds were established based on
critical considerations to ensure a clearer representation of the network.
The most cited reference formed the foundational knowledge base in a particular field (Zupic & Čater,
2015). Figure 9 visualized the co-citation network by reference, showcasing 19 articles from 17,414 cited
references within the network. The analysis also identified four clusters, each represented by different
colors, including Cluster 1 (red), Cluster 2 (green), Cluster 3 (blue), and Cluster 4 (yellow). Under the
theme of the “Beneficial Effect of Carbon Disclosure”, Cluster 1 focused on the effect of carbon and
greenhouse gas emissions disclosure on companies value, carbon performance, and financial impact
(Chapple et al., 2013; Griffin et al., 2017; Liao et al., 2015; Luo & Tang, 2014b; Matsumura et al., 2014;
Qian & Schaltegger, 2017; Saka & Oshika, 2014). Cluster 2 discussed climate change and voluntary dis-
closure (Kolk et al., 2008; Patten, 2002; Reid & Toffel, 2009; Stanny & Ely, 2008; Stanny, 2013). Cluster 3
focused on the theme related to greenwashing and environmental performance (Clarkson et al., 2008,
2011; de Villiers et al., 2011; Delmas & Burbano, 2011). Finally, Cluster 4 discussed stakeholder theory,
climate change, and the review of carbon performance and disclosure (Freeman, 2010; Stanny & Ely,
2008; Velte et al., 2020).
Figure 10 presented a co-citation network based on journals in carbon disclosure discussions, signify-
ing the interconnectedness and effect of various academic publications. In the network, nodes repre-
sented journals, edges showed co-citation, node sizes corresponded to citation frequencies, and colors
signified clusters of closely related journals. The central position of the Journal of Business Strategy and
the Environment showed its significant role in carbon disclosure literature. The journal was frequently
cited together with others within different clusters. Other prominent journals, such as Sustainability,
Energy Policy, and the Journal of Cleaner Production, also showed high co-citation frequencies, indicat-
ing their importance in the dissemination of sustainability and carbon management literature. The figure
16 D. SETIAWAN ETAL.
further indicated how different journals were grouped into clusters, each focusing on specific aspects of
carbon disclosure, ranging from strategic management to environmental accounting and policy, thereby
signifying the diverse disciplinary perspectives in this field.
3.4. Keywords analysis and future directions
The Scopus database provides big data on the bibliography of published articles. The bibliometric analysis
used the data by mapping through the Biblishiny program. Moreover, co-occurrence analysis was used to
map the overall strength between keywords and their occurrences. The volume of clusters provides import-
ant information showing the potential and importance of the keywords, with edges and colors presenting
each cluster and the relationship between keywords in the co-occurrence network.
Figure 11 illustrates the co-occurrence network consisting of nodes and edges connecting keywords. As
expected, “carbon disclosure” had the largest node size, which was the main topic in this study. Some
Figure 9. Co-citation network by references.
Source: Processed using VOSviewer, 2024.
Figure 10. Co-citation network by journals.
Source: Processed using VOSviewer, 2024.
COGENT SOCIAL SCIENCES 17
nodes may not appear because their occurrences are too small. There were 4 clusters represented with
different colors, each with several keywords and the same theme (Cluster 1 = red; Cluster 2 = blue; Cluster
3 = green; and Cluster 4 = purple). A keyword may have a relationship with others belonging to different
clusters. Cluster 1 contained the most nodes, but they were smaller in size when compared to those in
other clusters. Cluster 3 was the smallest, with limited and smaller nodes, focusing on carbon emissions,
companies performance, and sustainability. In contrast, Clusters 2 and 4 had larger nodes, such as carbon
disclosure, carbon performance, and climate change, which represented the basic themes in this review.
The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) has become an integral part of the sustainability initiative realm, such
as carbon disclosure. Despite having a small number of nodes, CDP has made a significant contribution both
in terms of reporting framework and database disclosure quality. CDP is a platform that helps firms to make
disclosures, including climate change and carbon. They distribute questionnaires and based on the data, CDP
reported the firm value regarding their disclosures. Meanwhile, accounting and sustainability reporting are
growing significantly as carbon is internalized in the financial components of firms, and there is a high demand
for transparency in emissions. Recent discussions have addressed board diversity, ownership structure, regula-
tory pressure, and corporate social responsibility (CSR) in relation to carbon emissions. These are gaining high
discussion among scholars as stakeholders focus on transparency and accountability of carbon management
and use the information to make decisions (Jaggi et al., 2017).
Figure 11 included 44 keywords, which were detailed in Table 7. The variable column listed all key-
words used in carbon disclosure literature. The clusters combined several highly related keywords. The
“betweenness” metric measured how often a node served as a junction on the shortest path between
other nodes, showing its role in facilitating information flows. “Closeness” measured how quickly a node
could reach all other nodes in the network, showing its accessibility. Finally, “PageRank” evaluated the
importance of a node based on the quality and number of its connections.
Based on Table 7, carbon disclosure and carbon performance were the most influential nodes, with
high values in betweenness, closeness, and PageRank metrics. This showed that both topics played an
important role in bridging information and significantly affected the network. In contrast, nodes such as
Carbon Strategy and Companies Size showed low centrality across all metrics, indicating their lower influ-
ence and connectivity within the network. Meanwhile, Climate Change had high betweenness and
PageRank values, signifying its importance.
Further investigations needed to focus on the dynamic interactions between nodes with high central-
ity such as Carbon Disclosure and Climate Change, to explore how their influence could be leveraged to
improve the understanding and use of carbon disclosure practices. Additionally, examining factors con-
tributing to the low centrality in nodes, including carbon strategy, value relevance, cost of capital, CSR,
legitimacy theory, and environmental reporting might provide insights into how these areas and better
integrated into carbon disclosure framework.
Figure 11. Visualization of co-occurrence network.
Source: Processed using bibliometrix R-package (Biblioshiny), 2024.
18 D. SETIAWAN ETAL.
Several themes that also still have great potential to be developed in the future include stakeholder pres-
sure, disclosure policy, higher education institutions, and managers. In stakeholder pressure, previous research
has widely discussed the relationship between government ownership, managerial ownership, concentration,
and regulatory pressure (Calza etal., 2016; Luo et al., 2012; Shan et al., 2021). Therefore, future studies can test
foreign, ultimate, and family ownership. Related to managers, there is an extensive discussion on the relation-
ship between board characteristics and gender diversity (Mardini & Lahyani, 2024; Santoso & Setiawan, 2024;
Toukabri & Jilani, 2023). Regarding higher education institutions, there was no study that related to the repu-
tation of the University where the manager or chief executive officer (CEO) analyzed carbon disclosure.
Moreover, it was previously stated that analyzing at a reputable university may promote better innovative
thinking, open-mindedness, and competency (Harymawan et al., 2023; Setiawan et al., 2024).
3.5. Carbon disclosure research for future directions
3.5.1. Most relevant data source
Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) was widely recognized as one of the most relevant and influential data
sources for carbon disclosure literature (Hettler & Graf-Vlachy, 2024). CDP was founded in 2000 to provide
a comprehensive global system for companies to measure, disclose, manage, and share important envi-
ronmental information, particularly in carbon emissions and climate change initiatives. Moreover, CDP
Table 7. Keyword selected for network parameters.
Node Cluster Betweenness Closeness PageRank
Environmental Performance 1 16.3542 0.0118 0.0360
Greenwashing 1 48.1558 0.0114 0.0435
Disclosure 1 112.5634 0.0123 0.0542
Corporate Governance 1 124.3866 0.0133 0.0538
Carbon Emission Disclosure 1 45.6073 0.0109 0.0319
Financial Performance 1 18.4183 0.0123 0.0341
Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1 6.3246 0.0114 0.0244
Corporate Social Responsibility 1 1.8922 0.0108 0.0159
Sustainability 1 5.2497 0.0109 0.0186
ESG 1 2.9002 0.0111 0.0200
Sustainability Reporting 1 3.1408 0.0112 0.0181
Information Disclosure 1 0.9593 0.0100 0.0113
Emissions 1 0.6617 0.0102 0.0121
Carbon Strategy 1 0.0000 0.0093 0.0084
Environmental 1 0.0000 0.0081 0.0060
Greenhouse Gas 1 0.6303 0.0109 0.0111
Accounting 1 0.0000 0.0085 0.0060
Carbon 1 2.5137 0.0111 0.0141
Company Size 1 0.0000 0.0075 0.0073
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) 1 0.7798 0.0098 0.0084
Earnings Management 1 0.0000 0.0085 0.0060
Climate Change 2 304.6947 0.0156 0.1137
Carbon Accounting 2 69.7957 0.0120 0.0413
Voluntary Disclosure 2 18.2216 0.0112 0.0234
GHG Emissions 2 5.5430 0.0114 0.0213
Carbon Management 2 0.2998 0.0100 0.0120
Sustainable Development 2 0.0000 0.0097 0.0095
Content Analysis 2 1.2279 0.0091 0.0121
Information Asymmetry 2 0.0000 0.0094 0.0058
Carbon Credit 2 2.6575 0.0095 0.0121
Environmental Reporting 2 0.0000 0.0080 0.0060
Carbon Emissions 3 64.0218 0.0112 0.0287
Firm Performance 3 0.0000 0.0076 0.0077
Corporate Sustainability 3 0.9201 0.0085 0.0088
Carbon Disclosure 4 267.3527 0.0143 0.1068
Carbon Performance 4 104.7113 0.0132 0.0711
Carbon Disclosure Project 4 0.3475 0.0109 0.0227
Environmental Disclosure 4 0.6685 0.0100 0.0132
Carbon Emission 4 0.0000 0.0089 0.0059
Legitimacy Theory 4 0.0000 0.0085 0.0070
Carbon Footprint 4 0.0000 0.0089 0.0071
CDP 4 0.0000 0.0094 0.0095
Value Relevance 4 0.0000 0.0089 0.0059
Cost of Capital 4 0.0000 0.0089 0.0071
Source: Processed using bibliometrix R-package (Biblioshiny), 2024.
COGENT SOCIAL SCIENCES 19
had an extensive database such as detailed reports from thousands of companies worldwide. This made
the database a valuable resource for analysts seeking to understand and develop literature related to
companies behavior in carbon management.
One of the main reasons CDP served as a relevant source for carbon disclosure literature was its rig-
orous data collection and verification process (Cohen etal., 2023). Companies participating in CDP were
required to disclose detailed information on their carbon emissions, climate change risks, and mitigation
strategies, adhering to a standard reporting framework that ensured consistency and comparability
(Cohen etal., 2023). This method made the data not only robust and reliable but also suitable for review
that monitored changes in companies’ carbon management practices over time. In instances where com-
panies were requested to disclose information but lacked the data or were unwilling to participate, CDP
would assign an F score for non-disclosure or failure to meet the required standards. This practice indi-
rectly pressured companies to participate in the sustainability initiative.
CDP played an important role in promoting transparency and accountability in companies environ-
mental reporting (Matisoff et al., 2013). By providing a platform for public disclosure, CDP encouraged
companies to be more transparent about their environmental impacts, which ultimately drove improve-
ments in environmental performance and companies governance. This transparency allowed for a more
accurate assessment of the relationship between carbon disclosure and various outcomes, such as finan-
cial performance, companies value, investor reactions, and regulatory compliance.
3.5.2. Theoretical foundations
Over the two decades of carbon disclosure literature, several theoretical foundations could be used for
future investigations. These included institutional theory, legitimacy theory, stakeholder theory, signaling
theory, agency theory, and upper echelons theory. Each of the theories provided a different perspective
for understanding the dynamics of carbon disclosure, including aspects of legitimacy, stakeholders, man-
agerial powers, and external pressure, as shown in Table 8.
3.5.3. Thematic maps
This study identified several relevant themes to better understand the findings. Figure 12 illustrates the
thematic map diagram, which was organized by density (Y-axis) and centrality (X-axis). The value of the
selected themes was measured based on centrality and growth (H. Li etal., 2023).
Basic themes are in the right corner of the thematic map (Figure 12). This theme has a low density
but does not reduce its usefulness in reviewing carbon disclosure literature. The observed basic theme
focused on carbon disclosure and issues of carbon performance, ESG performance, board attributes, gen-
der diversity, and sustainable development, as well as the beneficial effects of carbon disclosure.
Furthermore, the high attention to carbon emission and climate change issues has led to the demand
for transparency in corporate carbon management. Previous studies have explored the impact of carbon
disclosure on economic factors, to support the costs incurred by firms for better carbon management.
Empirically, carbon disclosure was found to improve financial performance (Desai et al., 2022; Khunkaew
et al., 2023), firm value (Mahmudah et al., 2023), and reputation (Khalid et al., 2024). It also increased
stock prices (Jaggi et al., 2017) and reduced the cost of capital (Gerged etal., 2021; Nguyen et al., 2023).
These foundational themes received intensive discussion, as did the niche themes on the top left, which
were low-centrality and well-developed. The findings suggested that this theme discussed GHG, environ-
mental management systems, firm size, media exposure, environmental regulations, stakeholder manage-
ment, and signalling theory. Although carbon disclosure regulations are increasing every year, carbon
disclosure in some countries is still voluntary, such as Indonesia (Mahmudah etal., 2023). Other countries
such as the European Union (EU) through the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive have made
carbon disclosure mandatory for companies, China’s Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE) intro-
duced regulations to require emissions disclosure by large and medium-sized companies in 2021, and
Australia followed the International Sustainability Standards Boards (ISSB) and began introducing manda-
tory climate disclosure in mid-2024 for large companies.
Therefore, governance and external pressures have been extensively discussed in order to examine
their impact on carbon disclosure. Previous research empirically found the role of board diversity and
20 D. SETIAWAN ETAL.
ownership structure on disclosure (Calza etal., 2016; Houqe & Khan, 2023), firm size (Freedman & Jaggi,
2005), dan media exposure (Bae Choi et al., 2013; Marquis et al., 2016). In some countries, such as the
United Kingdom, which has mandated disclosure through The Act 2013, it was found that after the reg-
ulation, firms listed on the UK main market increased the number of board commitments related to the
environment (Boamah, 2022). Furthermore, there was an increase in the quality and quantity of items
disclosed (Jiang & Tang, 2023).
The motor theme is located at the top right with high density and centrality. This section discussed
more about carbon reporting, environmental performance, carbon accounting, carbon credit, and digital
transformation related to carbon disclosure. These themes have experienced significant development
over time. The analysis found that there were several other themes that were still limited, such as CSR
(Perkins etal., 2022), value relevance (Jiang etal., 2021), carbon tax (Luo & Tang, 2014a), gender diversity
(Toukabri & Jilani, 2023), and carbon trading (X. Yu et al., 2022). Some of these factors still have room to
contribute more in different contexts.
Table 8. Theoretical foundations.
Theory Description Carbon Disclosure Rationalization Example
Institutional theory This theory could be used to understand
how norms, values, and pressures from
institutions, such as governments,
investors, and international organizations
inuenced companies decisions.
Pressure from various institutions
would encourage companies to
make better carbon disclosure.
(Wahyuningrum et al., 2024);
(Ferreras etal., 2024)
Legitimacy theory This theory concerned how companies
attempted to gain, maintain, or improve
social legitimacy.
Carbon disclosure increased the
legitimacy of the companies.
(M. T. Lee & Raschke, 2023);
(Bauckloh et al., 2023)
Stakeholders’
theory
This theory explored how companies
respond to demands and expectations
from various stakeholders, such as
customers, investors, government, and
society, regarding carbon disclosure.
Companies disclose information
because they meet stakeholder
demands.
(Bedi & Singh, 2024); (Singhania &
Bhan, 2024)
Signaling theory This theory analyzed the signals sent by
companies through disclosure to show
their commitment to sustainability issues
and climate change mitigation.
Carbon disclosure signaled to the
market and stakeholders that the
companies have initiatives on
carbon emissions issues and were
responsible.
(Luo, 2019); (Santos etal., 2024)
Agency theory This theory discussed the conict of
interest between management (agent)
and the principle in the context of
companies information.
Carbon disclosure reduced information
asymmetry between agents and
principles while also functioning to
monitor agent behavior.
(Oussii & Jeriji, 2024); (Borghei
et al., 2018)
Upper echelons
theory
This theory explained the inuence of top
management characteristics on strategic
decisions that aected companies
outcomes.
The power held by top management
drove strategic decisions on carbon
disclosure.
(Birindelli et al., 2024); (Elsayih
et al., 2021)
Source: Authors compilation.
Figure 12. Thematic map by keywords.
Source: Processed using bibliometrix R-package (Biblioshiny), 2024.
COGENT SOCIAL SCIENCES 21
Figure 13 presented a timeline plot showing the evolution of review topics in carbon disclosure from
2013 to 2024. Each topic was represented by a horizontal line that showed the period when it was
prominent in the literature, with dots representing specific years when there was a significant increase
in literature on the topic. The size of the nodes showed the frequency or intensity of literature on the
topic. In the first year, Information Disclosure was a prominent topic in carbon disclosure literature,
receiving significant attention until 2022, with extensive discussions in 2016.
The figure presented a marked increase in interest in topics such as Carbon Disclosure, Climate
Change, and Carbon Emissions, particularly between 2018 and 2021. Recent trends also showed a grow-
ing focus on Companies Governance, Carbon Performance, and Greenwashing. This shift indicated an
increasing focus on integrating companies’ governance with carbon disclosure and addressing green-
washing practices by less responsible companies. Therefore, future investigations were needed to explore
this topic further to address gaps identified in previous literature.
4. Conclusion
In conclusion, there are many unresolved problems in business and investment aspects, such as carbon
emission management, especially disclosure. The number of disclosure publications has shown impres-
sive growth over the years. This has great potential to expand with increasingly vocal efforts to mitigate
the risks of climate change globally. The study provided an overview of carbon disclosure, including (1)
identifying the most relevant journals, countries, affiliations, and authors; (2) identifying the top cited
articles in this domain, and (3) intellectual structure of carbon disclosure-based co-citations network; and
(4) recommendations for future research in several sections of the discussion. Meanwhile, all relevant
articles were selected with “carbon disclosure” from the Scopus database until August, 2024. The Journal
of Cleaner Production was found to be the most relevant and frequently referenced journal. Although
the journal did not focus on the scope of Business, Management, and Accounting, it has greatly contrib-
uted to the development of carbon disclosure literature. Moreover, the Journal of Cleaner Production was
excluded from previous reviews for not being an accounting journal. This study identified economic
development, environmental regulations, and integration accros sectors including education as the driv-
ers of Australia being the most influential country in carbon disclosure analysis, with the two most influ-
ential and widely cited authors, Tang Q and Luo L. This made Australia the hometown of the authors
who led the carbon disclosure discussion. Studies vary widely and present different approaches, where
examining the determinants and beneficial effects of carbon disclosure has contributed significantly to
Figure 13. The topic of trends over the last decade.
Source: Processed using bibliometrix R-package (Biblioshiny), 2024.
22 D. SETIAWAN ETAL.
the literature. In addition, studies that received significant attention and high citations were related to
the relationship between carbon emissions, disclosure, and performance.
The results showed that the direct engagement of certain universities in reporting their emissions,
along with better environmental regulations in countries such as Australia and China, could promote
carbon disclosure among companies and contribute to advancing literature in this area. Additionally, the
review identified greenwashing as a prominent topic in discussions on environmental responsibility. This
suggested that some companies might not genuinely prioritize reducing carbon emissions but rather use
carbon disclosure as a form of impression management to gain public legitimacy without substantive
action. Therefore, there was a need for policymakers to create a more comprehensive regulatory frame-
work to foster responsible companies practices and promote sustainability goals. Analysts were also
encouraged to develop a framework or literature to identify various greenwashing practices that could
negatively impact stakeholders. The review showed that the CDP remained the most reliable source of
data for carbon disclosure compared to others, such as annual reports and sustainability reports.
This study made a significant contribution to the previously fragmented carbon disclosure literature
and fills a gap in previous literature review studies. However, it is important to recognize the limitations.
Firstly, this study only used English texts. Chinese, Spanish, and German texts were excluded from the
analysis because incorporating more than one language in a bibliometric analysis may cause bias, spe-
cifically when the author is not a native language user. Future surveys could analyze the excluded arti-
cles to complement the results. Secondly, the Scopus database was accessed on August, 2024, after
which carbon disclosure analysis was not accommodated. Thirdly, discussion leaders were identified on
the topic of carbon disclosure based on their citations. For various reasons, the number of citations
depends on the authors’ decision to cite other documents. This study may miss relevant works without
citations or recently published articles. Furthermore, identification errors in citations may occur, specifi-
cally when the citation is carried out by a minor journal. Citations provide the most robust information
for the most relevant authors. Fourth, the results were affected by the selection of keywords and the
most relevant keywords have been selected based on previous literatures. The bibliometric analysis pri-
marily relied more on a bibliometric data extracted from each article. Consequently, specific details may
be missing from the discussion sections of each article. The methodology used was believed to effec-
tively addressed the review questions and provided recommendations that have been underexplored in
previous literature.
Author contributions
Conceptualization, D.S., A.S., A.A., R.K.B., A.H.J.; data curation, A.S., A.A.; formal analysis, D.S., A.S., A.A., R.K.B., A.H.J.; inves-
tigation, D.S., A.S., A.A., R.K.B., A.H.J.; methodology, D.S., A.S., A.A., R.K.B., A.H.J.; visualization, D.S., A.S., A.A.; writing-review
and editing, D.S., A.S., A.A., R.K.B., A.H.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Disclosure statement
No potential conict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
The authors acknowledge nancial support from Universitas Sebelas Maret, International Collaboration Research
Grant, Grant nu: 194.2/UN27.22/PT.01.03/2024.
About the authors
Doddy Setiawan is a Professor at the Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Sebelas Maret. He obtained a
PhD degree in accounting at Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia. His research interests focus on nancial accounting,
management accounting, corporate governance, corporate disclosure, and quantitative research methods.
Arif Santoso is a master’s student in accounting at the Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Sebelas Maret.
His research interests focus on environment accounting, corporate governance, and accounting education.
COGENT SOCIAL SCIENCES 23
Andi Asrihapsari is lecturer at the School of Vocational, Universitas Sebelas Maret. She is currently pursuing a PhD
at Universitas Sebelas Maret (UNS) in Surakarta, Indonesia. Her research interests focus on accounting information
system and management accounting.
Rayenda Khresna Brahmana is lecturer at the School of Economics, Finance and Accounting, Coventry University,
Coventry, UK. His research interests focus on corporate nance, behavioral nance, corporate strategy, personal
nance, and digital nance.
Amar Hisham Jaaar is lectuter at Institute of Energy Policy & Research (IEPRe), Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Malaysia.
His research interests focus on sustainability, environmental governance, energy and social sustainability, leadership
and pro sustainability behavior.
ORCID
Doddy Setiawan http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0394-0738
Arif Santoso http://orcid.org/0009-0006-7058-3637
Andi Asrihapsari http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0098-9683
Rayenda Khresna Brahmana http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6670-8875
Amar Hisham Jaaar http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4746-5409
Data availability statement
The data that support the ndings of this study are available from the corresponding author, DS, upon reasonable request.
References
Abdul Majid, J., Che Adam, N., Ab Rahim, N., & Razak, R. (2023). CEO power, regulatory pressures, and carbon emis-
sions: An emerging market perspective. Cogent Business & Management, 10(3), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311
975.2023.2276555
Abhilash, A., Shenoy, S. S., & Shetty, D. K. (2023). Overview of corporate governance research in India: A bibliometric
analysis. Cogent Business & Management, 10(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2182361
Ali, K., Arslan, H. M., Mubeen, M., Azeem, H., Zhen-Yu, Z., Yushi, J., & Miao, M. (2024). From reporting to responsibil-
ity: investigating the inuence of sustainability disclosure on earnings management. Environment, Development
and Sustainability, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04920-y
Ali, W., Wilson, J., & Frynas, J. G. (2024). Corporate governance mechanisms and carbon disclosure: A multilevel and
multitheory literature survey. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 31(6), 5670–5689.
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2869
Alves, M. W. F. M., & Mariano, E. B. (2018). Climate justice and human development: A systematic literature review.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 202, 360–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.091
Antwi, I. F., Carvalho, C., & Carmo, C. (2022). Corporate governance research in Ghana through bibliometric method:
review of existing literature. Cogent Business & Management, 9(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.208
8457
Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of
Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
Bae 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
Bauckloh, T., Klein, C., Pioch, T., & Schiemann, F. (2023). Under pressure? The link between mandatory climate report-
ing and rms’ carbon performance. Organization & Environment, 36(1), 126–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/108602
66221083340
Bedi, A., & Singh, B. (2024). Reconnoitering the impact of corporate governance on carbon emission disclosure in an
emerging setting. International Journal of Law and Management, 66(6), 792–809. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJLMA-11-2023-0251
Benlemlih, M., & Yavaş, Ç. V. (2024). Economic policy uncertainty and climate change: Evidence from CO2 emission.
Journal of Business Ethics, 191(3), 415–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05389-x
Birindelli, G., Chiappini, H., & Jalal, R. N. U. D. (2024). Greenwashing, bank nancial performance and the moderating
role of gender diversity. Research in International Business and Finance, 69(January), 102235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ribaf.2024.102235
Boamah, E. O. (2022). Mandatory carbon disclosure and green committees. Economics Letters, 219, 110767. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2022.110767
24 D. SETIAWAN ETAL.
Borghei, Z. (2021). Carbon disclosure: a systematic literature review. Accounting & Finance, 61(4), 5255–5280. https://
doi.org/10.1111/ac.12757
Borghei, Z., Leung, P., & Guthrie, J. (2018). Does voluntary greenhouse gas emissions disclosure reduce information
asymmetry? Australian evidence. Afro-Asian J. of Finance and Accounting, 8(2), 123–147. https://doi.org/10.1504/
AAJFA.2018.091055
Bowen, F., & Wittneben, B. (2011). Carbon accounting: Negotiating accuracy, consistency and certainty across organ-
isational elds. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 24(8), 1022–1036. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513
571111184742
Briš, M., Mijoč, I., & Drvenkar, N., (2024). Carbon accounting - literature review at the meso level. Ekonomski Pregled,
75(3), 241–260. https://doi.org/10.32910/ep.75.3.2
Busch, T., & Homann, V. H. (2011). How hot is your bottom line? linking carbon and nancial performance. Business
& Society, 50(2), 233–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650311398780
Calza, F., Profumo, G., & Tutore, I. (2016). Corporate ownership and environmental proactivity. Business Strategy and
the Environment, 25(6), 369–389. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1873
Chapple, L., Clarkson, P. M., & Gold, D. L. (2013). The cost of carbon: Capital market eects of the proposed emission
trading scheme (ETS). Abacus, 49(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/abac.12006
Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D., & Vasvari, F. P. (2008). Revisiting the relation between environmental perfor-
mance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4–5), 303–
327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2007.05.003
Clarkson, P. M., Overell, M. B., & Chapple, L. (2011). Environmental reporting and its relation to corporate environ-
mental performance. Abacus, 47(1), 27–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6281.2011.00330.x
Cohen, S., Kadach, I., & Ormazabal, G. (2023). Institutional investors, climate disclosure, and carbon emissions. Journal
of Accounting and Economics, 76(2–3), 101640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2023.101640
Csutora, M., & Harangozo, G. (2017). Twenty years of carbon accounting and auditing - A review and outlook. Society
and Economy, 39(4), 459–480. https://doi.org/10.1556/204.2017.39.4.1
Dahlmann, F., Branicki, L., & Brammer, S. (2019). Managing carbon aspirations: The inuence of corporate climate
change targets on environmental performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10551-017-3731-z
Datt, R. R., Luo, L., & Tang, Q. (2019). Corporate voluntary carbon disclosure strategy and carbon performance in the
USA. Accounting Research Journal, 32(3), 417–435. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARJ-02-2017-0031
David, B., & Giordano-Spring, S. (2022). Climate reporting related to the TCFD framework: An exploration of the air
transport sector. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 42(1–2), 18–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/096916
0X.2021.2007784
de Freitas Netto, S. V., Sobral, M. F. F., Ribeiro, A. R. B., & Soares, G. R. d. L. (2020). Concepts and forms of greenwash-
ing: a systematic review. Environmental Sciences Europe, 32(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-020-0300-3
De Giuli, M. E., Grechi, D., & Tanda, A. (2024). What do we know about ESG and risk? A systematic and bibliometric
review. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 31(2), 1096–1108. https://doi.org/10.1002/
csr.2624
de Villiers, C., Naiker, V., & van Staden, C. J. (2011). The eect of board characteristics on rm environmental perfor-
mance. Journal of Management, 37(6), 1636–1663. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311411506
Delmas, M. A., & Burbano, A. (2011). The drivers of greenwashing. California Management Review, 54(1), 64–87. https://
doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2011.54.1.64
Dervis, H. (2019). Bibliometric analysis using bibliometrix an R package. Journal of Scientometric Research, 8(3), 156–
160. https://doi.org/10.5530/JSCIRES.8.3.32
Desai, R., Raval, A., Baser, N., & Desai, J. (2022). Impact of carbon emission on nancial performance: empirical ev-
idence from India. South Asian Journal of Business Studies, 11(4), 450–470. https://doi.org/10.1108/
SAJBS-10-2020-0384
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview
and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133(May), 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
Elkington, J. (1998). Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st-century business.
Environmental Quality Management, 8(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.3310080106
Ellegaard, O., & Wallin, J. A. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact?
Scientometrics, 105(3), 1809–1831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z
Elsayih, J., Datt, R., & Hamid, A. (2021). CEO characteristics: do they matter for carbon performance? An empirical
investigation of Australian rms. Social Responsibility Journal, 17(8), 1279–1298. https://doi.org/10.1108/
SRJ-04-2020-0130
Esfahbodi, A., Zhang, Y., & Watson, G. (2016). Sustainable supply chain management in emerging economies:
Trade-os between environmental and cost performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 181, 350–
366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.02.013
Fernando, Y., Rozuar, N. H. M., & Mergeresa, F. (2021). The blockchain-enabled technology and carbon performance:
Insights from early adopters. Technology in Society, 64(September 2020), 101507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tech-
soc.2020.101507
COGENT SOCIAL SCIENCES 25
Ferreras, A., Castro, P., & Tascón, M. T. (2024). Carbon performance and nancial debt: Eect of formal and informal
institutions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 31(4), 2801–2822. https://doi.org/10.
1002/csr.2709
Freedman, M., & Jaggi, B. (2005). Global warming, commitment to the Kyoto protocol, and accounting disclosures by
the largest global public rms from polluting industries. The International Journal of Accounting, 40(3), 215–232.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intacc.2005.06.004
Freedman, M., & Jaggi, B. (2010). Global warming and corporate disclosures: A comparative analysis of companies
from the European Union, Japan and Canada. In Sustainability, Environmental Performance, and Disclosures (pp.
129–160). https://doi.org/10.1108/s1479-3598(2010)0000004009
Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press.
Gebhardt, M., Schneider, A., Siedler, F., Ottenstein, P., & Zülch, H. (2024). Climate reporting in the fast lane? The im-
pact of corporate governance on the disclosure of climate-related risks and opportunities. Business Strategy and
the Environment, 33(7), 7253–7272. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3852
Gerged, A. M., Matthews, L., & Elheddad, M. (2021). Mandatory disclosure, greenhouse gas emissions and the cost of
equity capital: UK evidence of a U-shaped relationship. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(2), 908–930.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2661
Gibassier, D., Michelon, G., & Cartel, M. (2020). The future of carbon accounting research: “we’ve pissed mother nature
o, big time. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 11(3), 477–485. https://doi.org/10.1108/
SAMPJ-02-2020-0028
Gonzalez-Gonzalez, J. M., & Zamora Ramírez, C. (2016). Voluntary carbon disclosure by Spanish companies: an em-
pirical analysis. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 8(1), 57–79. https://doi.
org/10.1108/IJCCSM-09-2014-0114
Grin, P. A., Lont, D. H., & Sun, Y. (2017). The Relevance to investors of greenhouse gas gmission Disclosures.
Contemporary Accounting Research, 34(2), 1265–1297. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12298
Gulluscio, C., Puntillo, P., Luciani, V., & Huisingh, D. (2020). Climate change reporting: a systematic literature review.
Sustainability, 12(13), 60–88. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGENVI.2022.10052469
Hahn, R., Reimsbach, D., & Schiemann, F. (2015). Organizations, climate change, and transparency: Reviewing the
literature on carbon disclosure. Organization & Environment, 28(1), 80–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615575542
Hansen, C., Steinmetz, H., & Block, J. (2022). How to conduct a meta-analysis in eight steps: a practical guide.
Management Review Quarterly, 72(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-021-00247-4
Harymawan, I., Minanurohman, A., Nasih, M., Shae, R., & Ismail, I. (2023). Chief nancial ocer’s educational back-
ground from reputable universities and nancial reporting quality. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change,
19(4), 566–587. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAOC-12-2021-0195
Hasan, M. A., Abubakar, I. R., Rahman, S. M., Aina, Y. A., Islam Chowdhury, M. M., & Khondaker, A. N. (2020). The
synergy between climate change policies and national development goals: Implications for sustainability. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 249, 119369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119369
He, R., Luo, L., Shamsuddin, A., & Tang, Q. (2022). Corporate carbon accounting: a literature review of carbon account-
ing research from the Kyoto Protocol to the Paris Agreement. Accounting & Finance, 62(1), 261–298. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ac.12789
Hettler, M., & Graf-Vlachy, L. (2024). Corporate scope 3 carbon emission reporting as an enabler of supply chain
decarbonization: A systematic review and comprehensive research agenda. Business Strategy and the Environment,
33(2), 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3486
Houqe, M. N., & Khan, H. Z. (2023). What determines the quality of carbon reporting? A system-oriented theories and
corporate governance perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(6), 3197–3216. https://doi.org/10.1002/
bse.3295
Jaggi, B., Allini, A., Macchioni, R., & Zampella, A. (2017). Do investors nd carbon information useful? Evidence from
Italian rms. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 50(4), 1031–1056. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11156-017-0653-x
Jiang, Y., & Tang, Q. (2023). Mandatory carbon reporting, voluntary carbon disclosure and ESG performance. Pacic
Accounting Review, 35(4), 534–561. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAR-08-2022-0133
Jiang, Y., Luo, L., Xu, J. F., & Shao, X. R. (2021). The value relevance of corporate voluntary carbon disclosure: Evidence
from the United States and BRIC countries. Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics, 17(3), 100279. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jcae.2021.100279
Khalid, F., Sun, J., Guo, J., & Srivastava, M. (2024). Green corporate image: Assessing the eects of climate change
management practices on corporate reputation. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
31(3), 1786–1801. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2663
Khunkaew, R., Wichianrak, J., & Suttipun, M. (2023). Sustainability reporting, gender diversity, rm value and corpo-
rate performance in ASEAN region. Cogent Business & Management, 10(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.
2023.2200608
Kiswanto, K., Hajawiyah, A., Harjanto, A. P., & Setyarini, E. T. (2023). Twelve years research journey of carbon ac-
counting. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 13(4), 246–254. https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.
14288
26 D. SETIAWAN ETAL.
Kolk, A., Levy, D., & Pinkse, J. (2008). Corporate responses in an emerging climate regime: The institutionalization and
commensuration of carbon disclosure. European Accounting Review, 17(4), 719–745. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09638180802489121
Kuriawan, K., Subowo, H., & Firmansyah, I. (2022). Bibliometric analysis of carbon accounting research. International
Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 12(3), 482–489. https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.12992
Kurnia, P., Darlis, E., & Putra, A. A. (2020). Carbon emission disclosure, good corporate governance, nancial perfor-
mance, and rm value. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(12), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.13106/
jafeb.2020.vol7.no12.223
Lee, K. H., & Min, B. (2015). Green R&D for eco-innovation and its impact on carbon emissions and rm performance.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 534–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.114
Lee, M. T., & Raschke, R. L. (2023). Stakeholder legitimacy in rm greening and nancial performance: What about
greenwashing temptations?. Journal of Business Research, 155, 113393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113393
Li, D., Huang, M., Ren, S., Chen, X., & Ning, L. (2018). Environmental legitimacy, green innovation, and corporate
carbon disclosure: Evidence from CDP China 100. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(4), 1089–1104. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10551-016-3187-6
Li, H., Arslan, H. M., Mousa, G. A., Abbas, A., Dwyer, R. J., & Bilal. (2023). Exploring sustainability disclosures in family
rms: a bibliometric analysis. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja, 36(3), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13316
77X.2023.2188238
Li, W., Li, W., Seppänen, V., & Koivumäki, T. (2023). Eects of greenwashing on nancial performance: Moderation
through local environmental regulation and media coverage. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(1), 820–841.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3177
Liao, L., Luo, L., & Tang, Q. (2015). Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse
gas disclosure. The British Accounting Review, 47(4), 409–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2014.01.002
Lim, W. M., Kumar, S., & Ali, F. (2022). Advancing knowledge through literature reviews: “what”, “why”, and “how to
contribute. ” Service Industries Journal, 42(7–8), 481–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2022.2047941
Liu, G., Qian, H., Shi, Y., Yuan, D., & Zhou, M. (2024). How do rms react to capital market liberalization? Evidence
from ESG reporting greenwashing. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 31(5), 4329–
4344. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2808
Liu, G., Qian, H., Shi, Y., Zhang, Y., & Wu, F. (2024). Does ESG report greenwashing increase stock price crash risk?
China Journal of Accounting Studies, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/21697213.2024.2303070
Liu, Y. S., Zhou, X., Yang, J. H., Hoepner, A. G. F., & Kakabadse, N. (2023). Carbon emissions, carbon disclosure and
organizational performance. International Review of Financial Analysis, 90(July), 102846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
irfa.2023.102846
Luo, L. (2019). The inuence of institutional contexts on the relationship between voluntary carbon disclosure and
carbon emission performance. Accounting & Finance, 59(2), 1235–1264. https://doi.org/10.1111/ac.12267
Luo, L., & Tang, Q. (2014a). Carbon tax, corporate carbon prole and nancial return. Pacic Accounting Review, 26(3),
351–373. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAR-09-2012-0046
Luo, L., & Tang, Q. (2014b). Does voluntary carbon disclosure reect underlying carbon performance? Journal of
Contemporary Accounting & Economics, 10(3), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcae.2014.08.003
Luo, L., & Tang, Q. (2023). The real eects of ESG reporting and GRI standards on carbon mitigation: International
evidence. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(6), 2985–3000. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3281
Luo, L., Lan, Y. C., & Tang, Q. (2012). Corporate incentives to disclose carbon information: Evidence from the CDP
global 500 report. Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting, 23(2), 93–120. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-646X.2012.01055.x
Ma, B., Lin, S., Bashir, M. F., Sun, H., & Zafar, M. (2023). Revisiting the role of rm-level carbon disclosure in sustainable
development goals: Research agenda and policy implications. Gondwana Research, 117, 230–242. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.gr.2023.02.002
Ma, J., & Kuo, J. (2021). Environmental self-regulation for sustainable development: Can internal carbon pricing enhance -
nancial performance? Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(8), 3517–3527. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2817
Macquarie University. (2022). Sustainablity targets tracking: 2022 status report. http://www.hansgrohe.com/assets/
global/Sustainability_goals__2013_EN.pdf
Mahmudah, H., Yustina, A. I., Dewi, C. N., & Sutopo, B. (2023). Voluntary disclosure and rm value: Evidence from
Indonesia. Cogent Business & Management, 10(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2182625
Mardini, G. H., & Lahyani, F. E. (2024). The relevance of carbon performance and board characteristics on carbon
disclosure. Studies in Economics and Finance, 41(3), 660–683. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEF-02-2023-0056
Marquis, C., Toel, M. W., & Zhou, Y. (2016). Scrutiny, norms, and selective disclosure: A global study of greenwashing.
Organization Science, 27(2), 483–504. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1039
Mashayekhi, B., Dolatzarei, E., Faraji, O., & Rezaee, Z. (2024). Mapping the state of expanded audit reporting: a bib-
liometric view. Meditari Accountancy Research, 32(2), 579–612. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-09-2022-1809
Mateo-Márquez, A. J., González-González, J. M., & Zamora-Ramírez, C. (2019). Countries’ regulatory context and vol-
untary carbon disclosures. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 11(2), 383–408. https://doi.
org/10.1108/SAMPJ-11-2018-0302
COGENT SOCIAL SCIENCES 27
Mateo-Márquez, A. J., González-González, J. M., & Zamora-Ramírez, C. (2022). An international empirical study of
greenwashing and voluntary carbon disclosure. Journal of Cleaner Production, 363(July 2021), 132567. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132567
Matiso, D. C., Noonan, D. S., & O’Brien, J. J. (2013). Convergence in environmental reporting: Assessing the carbon
disclosure project. 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 disclo-
sures. The Accounting Review, 89(2), 695–724. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50629
Muktadir-Al-Mukit, D., & Bhaiyat, F. H. (2024). Impact of corporate governance diversity on carbon emission under
environmental policy via the mandatory nonnancial reporting regulation. Business Strategy and the Environment,
33(2), 1397–1417. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3555
Mushtaq, R., Dastane, O., Raq, M., & Başar, B. D. (2023). Women nancial inclusion research: a bibliometric and network
analysis. International Journal of Social Economics, 50(8), 1169–1185. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-06-2022-0438
Nasih, M., Harymawan, I., Rasid, S. Z. A., & Putra, F. K. G. (2024). Tax avoidance and sustainability reporting: Alignment
or greenwashing strategy? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 31(6), 6335–6351. https://
doi.org/10.1002/csr.2927
Nguyen, T. H., Yang, Y., Nguyen Thi Hong, T. T., & Nguyen, H. L. T. (2023). Climate-related corporate reporting and cost
of equity capital. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-02-2023-0078
Nyilasy, G., Gangadharbatla, H., & Paladino, A. (2014). Perceived greenwashing: The interactive eects of green adver-
tising and corporate environmental performance on consumer reactions. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(4), 693–
707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1944-3
Ochoa, G. V., Alvarez, J. N., & Acevedo, C. (2019). Research evolution on renewable energies resources from 2007 to
2017: A comparative study on solar, geothermal, wind and biomass energy. International Journal of Energy
Economics and Policy, 9(6), 242–253. https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.8051
Oussii, A. A., & Jeriji, M. (2024). Female directors’ representation and rm carbon emissions performance: does fami-
ly control matter? Journal of Family Business Management, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-06-2024-0121
Park, J. D., Nishitani, K., Kokubu, K., Freedman, M., & Weng, Y. (2023). Revisiting sustainability disclosure theories:
Evidence from corporate climate change disclosure in the United States and Japan. Journal of Cleaner Production,
382(vember 2022), 135203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135203
Pasadeos, Y., Phelps, J., & Kim, B. H. (1998). Disciplinary impact of advertising scholars: Temporal comparisons of in-
uential authors, works and research networks. Journal of Advertising, 27(4), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/009133
67.1998.10673569
Patten, D. M. (2002). The relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: A research
note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27(8), 763–773. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(02)00028-4
Paul, J., Lim, W. M., O’Cass, A., Hao, A. W., & Bresciani, S. (2021). Scientic procedures and rationales for systematic literature
reviews (SPAR-4-SLR). International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(4), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12695
Perkins, J., Jerey, C., & Freedman, M. (2022). Cultural inuences on the quality of corporate social responsibility
disclosures: an examination of carbon disclosure. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 13(5),
1169–1200. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-08-2021-0333
Poole, V. (2022). “Accounting standards: the ‘too dicult’ box - the next big accounting issue?” A practitioner view.
Accounting and Business Research, 52(5), 578–581. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2022.2079767
Pranckutė, R. (2021). Web of science (Wos) and scopus: The titans of bibliographic information in today’s academic
world. Publications, 9(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9010012
Qian, W., & Schaltegger, S. (2017). Revisiting carbon disclosure and performance: Legitimacy and management views.
The British Accounting Review, 49(4), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2017.05.005
Reid, E. M., & Toel, M. W. (2009). Responding to public and private politics: Corporate disclosure of climate change
strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 30(11), 1157–1178. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj
Russo, M. V. (2009). Explaining the impact of ISO 14001 on emission performance: A dynamic capabilities perspective
on process and learning. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(5), 307–319. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.587
Saha, A. K., & Khan, I. (2024). Regulatory inuence, board characteristics and climate change disclosures: evidence
from environmentally sensitive rms in developing economy context. Corporate Governance: The International
Journal of Business in Society, 24(6), 1442–1471. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-06-2023-0262
Saka, C., & Oshika, T. (2014). Disclosure eects, carbon emissions and corporate value. Sustainability Accounting,
Management and Policy Journal, 5(1), 22–45. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-09-2012-0030
Santos, C., Coelho, A., & Marques, A. (2024). The greenwashing eects on corporate reputation and brand hate,
through environmental performance and green perceived risk. Asia-Pacic Journal of Business Administration, 16(3),
655–676. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJBA-05-2022-0216
Santoso, A., & Setiawan, D. (2024). CEO characteristics and water disclosure: Multi-country evidence. Sustainable
Futures, 8(May), 100322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2024.100322
Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: ideas, interests, and identities. Sage Publications.
Setiawan, D., Harymawan, I., Adhariani, D., Pratama, F. A. F., & Santoso, A. (2024). Does the leverage of a company
dier when led by a CEO from a reputable university? Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and
Complexity, 10(2), 100310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2024.100310
28 D. SETIAWAN ETAL.
Setiawan, D., Rahmawati, I. P., & Santoso, A. (2023). A bibliometric analysis of evolving trends in climate change and
accounting research. Cogent Business & Management, 10(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2267233
Shan, Y. G., Tang, Q., & Zhang, J. (2021). The impact of managerial ownership on carbon transparency: Australian
evidence. Journal of Cleaner Production, 317(July), 128480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128480
Siddique, M. A., Akhtaruzzaman, M., Rashid, A., & Hammami, H. (2021). Carbon disclosure, carbon performance and
nancial performance: International evidence. International Review of Financial Analysis, 75(March), 101734. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2021.101734
Siddique, M. A., Aljifri, K., Hossain, S., & Choudhury, T. (2024). Eect of market-based regulations on corporate carbon
disclosure and carbon performance: global evidence. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 25(4), 837–857.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-08-2022-0215
Singhania, M., & Bhan, I. (2024). Firm ownership structure and voluntary carbon disclosure: a systematic review and
meta-analysis. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1108/
SAMPJ-08-2023-0613
Sitompul, M., Suroso, A. I., Sumarwan, U., & Zulbainarni, N. (2023). Revisiting the impact of corporate carbon man-
agement strategies on corporate nancial performance: A systematic literature review. Economies, 11(6), 171.
https://doi.org/10.3390/economies11060171
Stanny, E. (2013). Voluntary disclosures of emissions by US rms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 22(3), 145–
158. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1732
Stanny, E., & Ely, K. (2008). Corporate environmental disclosures about the eects of climate change. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(6), 338–348. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.175
Stechemesser, K., & Guenther, E. (2012). Carbon accounting: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 36, 17–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.02.021
Tautiva, J. A. D., Huaman, J., & Oliva, R. D. P. (2024). Trends in research on climate change and organizations: a bib-
liometric analysis (1999–2021). In. Management Review Quarterly, 74(1), 227–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11301-022-00298-1
Toukabri, M., & Jilani, F. (2023). The power of critical mass to make a dierence: how gender diversity in board aect US
corporate carbon performance. Society and Business Review, 18(4), 592–617. https://doi.org/10.1108/SBR-11-2021-0224
Truant, E., Crocco, E., Corazza, L., & Borlatto, E. (2024). Life cycle thinking and carbon accounting in sustainable sup-
ply chains: a structured literature review and research agenda. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy
Journal, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-09-2023-0708
United Nations. (2022). The sustainable development goals report 2022. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2022/
The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2022.pdf
Uyar, A., Karaman, A. S., & Kilic, M. (2020). Is corporate social responsibility reporting a tool of signaling or green-
washing? Evidence from the worldwide logistics sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 253, 119997. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.119997
Velte, P., Stawinoga, M., & Lueg, R. (2020). Carbon performance and disclosure: A systematic review of
governance-related determinants and nancial consequences. Journal of Cleaner Production, 254, 120063. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120063
Wahyuningrum, I. F. S., Humaira, N. G., Budihardjo, M. A., Arumdani, I. S., Puspita, A. S., Annisa, A. N., Sari, A. M., &
Djajadikerta, H. G. (2023). Environmental sustainability disclosure in Asian countries: Bibliometric and content anal-
ysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 411(March 2022), 137195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137195
Wahyuningrum, I. F. S., Ihlashul’amal, M., Utami, S., Djajadikerta, H. G., & Sriningsih, S. (2024). Determinants of carbon
emission disclosure and the moderating role of environmental performance. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1),
1–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2300518
Wang, Q. (2023). Financial eects of carbon risk and carbon disclosure: A review. Accounting & Finance, 63(4), 4175–
4219. https://doi.org/10.1111/ac.13090
World Economic Forum. (2023). The global risks report 2023. In Economic and political weekly (18th ed., Vol. 59). World
Economic Forum
Xu, J., & Liu, S. (2023). Current status, evolutionary path, and development trends of low-carbon technology innova-
tion: a bibliometric analysis. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26(9), 24151–24182. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10668-023-03640-z
Yadiati, W., Meiryani, M., Lindawati, A. S. L., Wahyuningtias, D., Daud, Z. M., & Lusianah, L. (2024). Exploring carbon
disclosure research for future research agenda: A bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Energy Economics
and Policy, 14(3), 684–693. https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.15452
Young, A. (2010). Greenhouse gas accounting: Global problem, national policy, local fugitives. Sustainability Accounting,
Management and Policy Journal, 1(1), 89–95. https://doi.org/10.1108/20408021011059269
Yu, E. P. Y., Luu, B. V., & Chen, C. H. (2020). Greenwashing in environmental, social and governance disclosures. Research in International
Business and Finance, 52(September 2019), 101192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2020.101192
Yu, X., Shi, J. W., Wan, K., & Chang, T. (2022). Carbon trading market policies and corporate environmental perfor-
mance in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 371(July), 133683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133683
Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods,
18(3), 429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629
