The impact of the board of directors on business climate change management: case of Brazilian companies

  • Daniel KouloukouiEmail author
  • Marcia Mara de Oliveira Marinho
  • Sônia Maria da Silva Gomes
  • Pieter de Jong
  • Asher Kiperstok
  • Ednildo Andrade Torres
Original Article


The corporate sector is one of the main emitters in the world due to the production process and therefore is identified as a major contributor to climate change. In fact, the productive sector is both one of the major aggregators of the impacts of global climate change and a market actor who can play an important role in reducing, mitigating, and adapting the vulnerability of human and natural systems. The main objective of this study was to verify whether the climate change performance of Brazilian companies is influenced by the characteristics of the composition of the board of directors (BD). The performance here is measured according to company’s Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) score. The score, besides evaluating the quality and comprehensiveness of information provided on climate change mitigation strategies, evaluates the level of concrete and proactive actions, policies, and strategies adopted by companies to mitigate climate change. The study was based on the premise that climate risk management is the responsibility of the board, which is responsible for ratifying important decisions in the company. A multiple linear regression model based on data from the CDP of a sample size equivalent to 72 Brazilian companies, referring to the period among 2014 to 2018, totaling 360 observations listed on the Brazilian stock exchange showed that corporate climate management have significant and positive relationship with the size of the company’s BD, number of independent directors of the BD, Business Sustainability Index (ISE) participation, size of firm, profitability, and industry classification. The findings suggest several strategies that could be used to engage firm in climate management, among which the increase in the number of independent directors in the board composition. In other words, we have found that one of the most effective strategies of mitigation and adaptation that can inhibit or pressure companies to become involved in climate management is increasing the number of independent directors on the board of directors. This result, although based on Brazilian companies, can have implications for the rest of the world’s companies, since, regardless of country, the BD’s role remains the same, ratifying the important decisions in the organization. Therefore, proportion of the number of independent director’s increase leads to the improvement of the company’s involvement in climate issues. Thus, potential investors, for example, may require such a feature before investing in a particular company. In addition, we found that companies that strive to be part of the ISE developed by the São Paulo capital market have a higher climate performance compared to companies that are not part of it, demonstrating therefore that ISE is a key instrument to get companies to increase their concern about environmental issues, in general, and climate, in particular. Thus, as global recommendations for mitigation/adaptation strategies, capital markets around the world can also play an important role in the climate mitigation and adaptation process by creating ISE-like instruments and creating incentives for companies to strive to adhere to these instruments.


Climate change Mitigation and adaptation strategies Board of directors Brazilian stock exchange Business climate change strategy 



This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)–Brasil–Finance Code 001 and by the Foundation for Research Support of the State of Bahia–FAPESB of Brazil.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Amran A, Periasamy V, Zulkafli AH (2014) Determinants of climate change disclosure by developed and emerging countries in Asia Pacific. Sustain Dev 22(3):188–204Google Scholar
  2. Barako DG, Hancock P, Izan HY (2006) Factors influencing voluntary corporate disclosure by Kenyan companies. Corp Gov 14(2):107–125Google Scholar
  3. Ben-Amar W, McIlkenny P (2015) Board effectiveness and the voluntary disclosure of climate change information. Bus Strateg Environ 24(8):704–719Google Scholar
  4. Berle A, Means G (1932) The modern corporation and private property. Mac-Millan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Boiral O, Henri JF, Talbot D (2012) Modeling the impacts of corporate commitment on climate change. Bus Strateg Environ 21(8):495–516Google Scholar
  6. Bovespa (2017) The São Paulo Stock Exchange, available at
  7. Braga JP, Oliveira JRS, Salotti BM (2009) Determinants of the level of environmental disclosure in financial statements of Brazilian companies. R Cont Ufba, Salvador-Ba 3(3):81–95Google Scholar
  8. Brown HCP, Smit B, Somorin OA, Sonwa DJ, Alcupcaddikilcoodana F (2013) Institutional perceptions, adaptive capacity and climate change response in a post-conflict country: a case study from Central African Republic. Clim Dev 5(3):206–216Google Scholar
  9. Carter DA, Simkins BJ, Simpson WG (2003) Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm value. Financ Rev 38(1):33–53Google Scholar
  10. CDP (2015). Carbon disclosure project 2015 climate change scoring methodology. Available at: 5
  11. CDP (2017). Carbon Disclosure Project, available at Accessed January 10, 2017
  12. CDP, 2018. Carbon disclosure project homepage. Available at: Accessed 31.10.2018
  13. Charreaux G (2000) Le conseil d’administration dans les théories de la gouvernance. Revue du financier 127:6–17Google Scholar
  14. Coles JW, McWilliams VB, Sen N (2001) An examination of the relationship of governance mechanisms to performance. J Manag 27(1):23–50Google Scholar
  15. Cotter J, Najah M (2012) Institutional investor influence on global climate change disclosure practices. Aust J Manag 37(2):169–187Google Scholar
  16. Da Silva Gomes SM, Koulou Koui D, Leal Bruni A, Cruz Oliveira N (2017) Relação entre o disclosure de riscos climáticos e o retorno anormal das empresas brasileiras. Rev Univ Contábil 13(2):149–165 Google Scholar
  17. De Faria JA, Andrade JCS, da Silva Gomes SM (2018) The determinants mostly disclosed by companies that are members of the Carbon Disclosure Project. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 23:1–24. Google Scholar
  18. Donnelly R, Mulcahy M (2008) Board structure, ownership, and voluntary disclosure program in Ireland. Corp Gov 16(5):416–429Google Scholar
  19. Eleftheriadis IM, Anagnostopoulou EG (2015) Relationship between corporate climate change disclosures and firm factors. Bus Strateg Environ 24(8):780–789Google Scholar
  20. Elshandidy T, Neri L (2015) Corporate governance, risk disclosure practices, and market liquidity: comparative evidence from the UK and Italy. Corp Gov 23(4):331–356Google Scholar
  21. Fama EF (1980) Agency problems and the theory of the firm. J Polit Econ 88(2):288–307Google Scholar
  22. Fama EF, Jensen MC (1983) Separation of ownership and control. J Law Econ 26(2):301–325Google Scholar
  23. Freedman M, Jaggi B (2005) Global warming, commitment to the Kyoto protocol, and accounting disclosures by the largest global public firms from polluting industries. Int J Account 40(3):215–232Google Scholar
  24. Galbreath J (2009) Building corporate social responsibility into strategy. Eur Bus Rev 21(2):109–127Google Scholar
  25. Galbreath J (2010) Corporate governance practices that address climate change: an exploratory study. Bus Strateg Environ 19(5):335–350Google Scholar
  26. Hackston D, Milne MJ (1996) Some determinants of social and environmental disclosures in New Zealand companies. Account Audit Account J 9(1):77–108Google Scholar
  27. Hahn R, Reimsbach D, Schiemann F (2015) Organizations, climate change, and transparency: Reviewing the literature on carbon disclosure. Organization & Environment 28(1):80–102Google Scholar
  28. Hoover S, Fafatas S (2016) Political environment and voluntary disclosure in the US: evidence from the Carbon Disclosure Project. J Pub Affairs 18(4):e1637.
  29. Huse M, Solberg AG (2006) Gender-related boardroom dynamics: how Scandinavian women make and can make contributions on corporate boards. Women Manag Rev 21(2):113–130Google Scholar
  30. IPCC (2007) IPCC, 2007: climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, Van Der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds) Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. IPCC (2014) Core Writing Team. In: Pachauri RK, Meyer LA (eds) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva, p 151Google Scholar
  32. Jensen MC (1993) The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems. J Financ 48(3):831–880Google Scholar
  33. Jensen MC, Meckling WH (1976) Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J Financ Econ 3(4):305–360Google Scholar
  34. Jeswani HK, Wehrmeyer W, Mulugetta Y (2008) How warm is the corporate response to climate change? Evidence from Pakistan and the UK. Bus Strateg Environ 17(1):46–60Google Scholar
  35. Kouloukoui D, da Silva Gomes SM, de Oliveira Marinho MM, Torres EA, Kiperstok A, de Jong P (2018) Disclosure of climate risk information by the world’s largest companies. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 23(8):1251–1279. Google Scholar
  36. Kouloukoui D, Sant'Anna ÂMO, da Silva Gomes SM, de Oliveira Marinho MM, de Jong P, Kiperstok A, Torres EA (2019) Factors influencing the level of environmental disclosures in sustainability reports: case of climate risk disclosure by Brazilian companies. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag.
  37. Lee SY (2012) Corporate carbon strategies in responding to climate change. Bus Strateg Environ 21(1):33–48. Google Scholar
  38. Lee SY, Park YS, Klassen RD (2015) Market responses to firms’ voluntary climate change information disclosure and carbon communication. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 22(1):1–12Google Scholar
  39. Lewis BW, Walls JL, Dowell GW (2014) Difference in degrees: CEO and firm environmental disclosure. Strateg Manag J 35(5):712–722Google Scholar
  40. Lipton M, Lorsch JW (1992) A modest proposal for improved corporate governance. The business lawyer 48(1);59–77Google Scholar
  41. Lorsch JW, Maclver E (1989) Pawns or potentates: the reality of America’s Corporate Boards. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  42. Luo L, Lan YC, Tang Q (2012) Corporate incentives to disclose carbon information: evidence from the CDP global 500 report. J Int Financ Manag Acc 23(2):93–120Google Scholar
  43. Patten DM (2000) Changing superfund disclosure and its relation to the provision of other environmental information. In Advances in environmental accounting & management (pp. 101–121). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 1 Editor(s): ISBN: 978-0-76230-334-2 eISBN: 978-1-84950-024-1Google Scholar
  44. Reid EM, Toffel M (2009) Responding to public and private politics: corporate disclosure of climate change strategies. Strateg Manag J 30(11):1157–1178Google Scholar
  45. Rose C (2007) Does female board representation influence firm performance? The Danish evidence. Corp Gov 15(2):404–413Google Scholar
  46. Stanny E (2013) Voluntary disclosures of emissions by US firms. Bus Strateg Environ 22(3):145–158Google Scholar
  47. Stanny E, Ely K (2008) Corporate environmental disclosures about the effects of climate change. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 15(6):338–348Google Scholar
  48. Stanwick SD, Stanwick PA (2000) The relationship between environmental disclosures and financial performance: an empirical study of US firms. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 7(4):155Google Scholar
  49. Stern, N. (2006). Stern review report on the economics of climate changeGoogle Scholar
  50. Sullivan R, Gouldson A (2016) The governance of corporate responses to climate change: an international comparison. Business Strategy and the Environment 26 (4):413–425.
  51. Vital JT, Wright M, Dalló S, de Oliveira Moritz G, Costa AM (2009) The influence of participation in corporate sustainability index (ISE) in the financial performance of firms. J Manag 11(24):11Google Scholar
  52. Vogel C (2009) Business and climate change: initial explorations in South Africa. Clim Dev 1(1):82–97Google Scholar
  53. Wegener M, Elayan FA, Felton S, Li J (2013) Factors influencing corporate environmental disclosures. Account Perspect 12(1):53–73Google Scholar
  54. Williams SM (1999) Voluntary environmental and social accounting disclosure practice in the Asia-Pacific region: an empirical test of political economy theory. Int J Account Econ 34(2):209–238Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Federal University of BahiaSalvadorBrazil

Personalised recommendations