Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Determinants of GHG Reporting: An Analysis of Global Oil and Gas Companies

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Corporate reporting on climate change is of increasing academic interest but is often considered solely from the firm perspective. This article extends current knowledge by considering how institutional pressures influence the greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting practices of multinational oil and gas companies. The results show that regulation under the EU emissions trading scheme and reporting according to the global reporting initiative (GRI) guidelines leads to better quality and more extensive reporting. Although generally adopting proactive climate change strategies, European companies do not have superior GHG reporting practices. Corporate media visibility does not impact GHG reporting practices which may be a reflection of the obscure portrayal of climate change in the print media or the fact that coverage is generally positive. This article adds to the current literature on GHG reporting practices demonstrating that institutional theory along with stakeholder theory and legitimacy theory can give further insights into explaining the GHG reporting practices of multinational companies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ader, C. R. (1995). A longitudinal study of agenda setting for the issue of environmental pollution. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 72(2), 300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aerts, W., & Cormier, D. (2009). Media legitimacy and corporate environmental communication. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(1), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aerts, W., Cormier, D., & Magnan, M. (2006). Intra-industry imitation in corporate environmental reporting: An international perspective. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 25(3), 299–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amran, A., Periasamy, V., & Zulkafli, A. H. (2011). Determinants of climate change disclosure by developed and emerging countries in Asia Pacific. Sustainable Development,. doi:10.1002/sd.539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antilla, L. (2005). Climate of scepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change. Global Environmental Change, 15(4), 338–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antilla, L. (2008). Self-censorship and science: A geographical review of media coverage of climate tipping points. Public Understanding of Science.

  • Baker, H. K., Powell, G. E., & Weaver, D. G. (1998). The effect of NYSE listing on a firm’s media visibility. Journal of Economics & Finance, 22(1), 19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P., & Clelland, I. (2004). Talking trash: Legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic risk in the context of the natural environment. Academy of Management Journal, 47(1), 93–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bebbington, J., Higgins, C., & Frame, B. (2009). Initiating sustainable development reporting: Evidence from New Zealand. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 22(4), 588–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boykoff, M. T. (2010). Indian media representation of climate change in a threatened journalistic ecosystem. Climatic Change, 99(1–2), 17–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boykoff, M. T., & Boykoff, J. M. (2004). Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14(2), 125–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boykoff, M. T., & Boykoff, J. M. (2007). Climate change and journalistic norms: A case-study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum, 38(6), 1190–1204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boykoff, M. T., & Mansfield, M. (2008). ‘Ye Olde Hot Aire’: Reporting on human contributions to climate change in the UK tabloid press. Environmental Research Letters, 3(2), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2006). Firm size, organizational visibility and corporate philanthropy: an empirical analysis. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(1), 6–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., & Pavelin, S. (2006). Voluntary environmental disclosures by large UK companies. Journal of Business Finanace & Accounting, 33(7 & 8), 1168–1188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branco, M. C., Eugénio, T., & Ribeiro, J. (2008). Environmental disclosure in response to public perception of environmental threats—The case of co-incineration in Portugal. Journal of Communication Management, 12(2), 136–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, N., & Deegan, C. (1998). The public disclosure of environmental performance information—A dual test of media agenda setting theory and legitimacy theory. Accounting and Business Research, 29(1), 21–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buhr, N. (1998). Environmental performance, legislation and annual report disclosure: The case of acid rain and Falconbridge. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 11(2), 163–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buhr, N., & Freedman, M. (2001). Culture, institutional factors and differences in environmental disclosure between Canada and the United States. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 12(3), 293–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, D. F., & O’Reilly, C. A., III. (1982). Responses to failure: The effects of choice and responsibility on impression management. The Academy of Management Journal, 25(1), 121–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carbon Market Data. (2012). Retrieved April 13, 2012 from https://www.carbonmarketdata.com/en/home.

  • Carlarne, C. P. (2006). Climate change policies an ocean apart: EU & US climate change policies compared. Pennsylvania State Environmental Law Review, 14(3), 435–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho, A. (2007). Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientific knowledge: Re-reading news on climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 16(2), 223–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho, A., & Burgess, J. (2005). Cultural circuits of climate change in U.K. broadsheet newspapers, 1985–2003. Risk Analysis, 25(6), 1457–1469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, J. (2012). A content analysis of BP’s press releases dealing with crisis. Public Relations Review, 38(3), 422–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, P. M., Overell, M. B., & Chapple, L. (2011). Environmental reporting and its relation to corporate environmental performance. Abacus, 47(1), 27–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comyns, B. & Figge, F. (2014). Greenhouse Gas reporting quality in the oil and gas industry - A longitudinal study using the typology of “Search”, “Experience” and “Credence” information. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal (forthcoming).

  • Cormier, D., & Magnan, M. (1999). Corporate environmental disclosure strategies: Determinants, costs and benefits. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 14(4), 429–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowen, S. S., Ferreri, L. B., & Parker, L. D. (1987). The impact of corporate characteristics on social responsibility disclosure: A typology and frequency-based analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12(2), 111–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, C., & Fraas, J. (2011). Coming clean: The impact of environmental performance and visibility on corporate climate change disclosure. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(2), 303–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Villiers, C., & Alexander, D. (2014). The institutionalisation of corporate social responsibility reporting. The British Accounting Review, 46(2), 198–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C. (2002). Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures a theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C. (2006). Legitimacy theory. In Z. Hoque (Ed.), Methodological issues in accounting research: Theories, methods and issues. London: Spiramus Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C., & Blomquist, C. (2006). Stakeholder influence on corporate reporting: An exploration of the interaction between WWF-Australia and the Australian minerals industry. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(4–5), 343–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C., & Gordon, B. (1996). A study of the environmental disclosure practices of Australian corporations. Accounting & Business Research, 26(3), 187–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C., & Rankin, M. (1996). Do Australian companies report environmental news objectively? An analysis of environmental disclosures by firms prosecuted successfully by the Environmental Protection Authority. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 9(2), 50–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C., Rankin, M., & Voght, P. (2000). Firms’ disclosure reactions to major social incidents: Australian evidence. Accounting Forum, 24(1), 101–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse, D. L. (1996). Does isomorphism legitimate? Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 1024–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse, D. L., & Suchman, M. C. (2008). Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • DEFRA. (2012). Leading businesses to disclose greenhouse gas emissions. Retrieved October 20, 2012 from http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2012/06/20/greenhouse-gas-reporting/.

  • Dillard, J. F., Rigsby, J. T., & Goodman, C. (2004). The making and remaking of organization context: duality and the institutionalization process. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 17(4), 506–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dong, S., & Burritt, R. (2010). Cross-sectional benchmarking of social and environmental reporting practice in the Australian oil and gas industry. Sustainable Development, 18(2), 108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dow Jones Factiva. (2009). Inside-out: Complete end -user reference guide for academic Dow Jones Factiva.com. Retrieved April 11, 2013 from http://www.proquest.com/assets/downloads/products/factiva_inside_out_user_guide.pdf.

  • Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. The Pacific Sociological Review, 18(1), 122–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downie, J., & Stubbs, W. (2013). Evaluation of Australian companies scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions assessments. Journal of Cleaner Production, 56, 156–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elijido-Ten, E., Kloot, L., & Clarkson, P. (2010). Extending the application of stakeholder influence strategies to environmental disclosures: An exploratory study from a developing country. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23(8), 1032–1059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entman, R. M. (1989). Democracy without citizens. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (EC). (2003). Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC. European Commission, Brussels.

  • European Commission (EC). (2004). Commission Decision of 29 January 2004 establishing guidelines for the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. European Commission, Brussels.

  • European Commission (EC). (2012). Commission Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 of 21 June 2012 on the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. European Commission, Brussles.

  • Evans, W. (2002). Computer environments for content analysis: Reconceptualizing the roles of humans and computers. In O. V. Burton (Ed.), Computing in the social science and humanities. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • FEE. (2000). Towards a generally accepted framework for environmental reporting—A paper issued by the Environmental Working Party of the European Federation of Accountants. Brussels: FEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Field, A. (2010). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortanier, F., Kolk, A., & Pinkse, J. (2011). Harmonization in CSR reporting: MNE’s and global CSR standards. Management International Review, 51(5), 665–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, M., & Jaggi, B. (2005). Global warming, commitment to the Kyoto protocol, and accounting disclosures by the largest global public firms from polluting industries. The International Journal of Accounting, 40(3), 215–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, M., & Jaggi, B. (2009). Global warming and corporate disclosures: A comparative analysis of companies from the European Union, Japan and Canada. Sustainability, Environmental Performance and Disclosures: 129-160. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

  • Galbreath, J. (2010). Corporate governance practices that address climate change: An exploratory study. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(5), 335–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • General Inquirer. (2002). General inquirer home page. Retrieved May 20, 2014 from http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~inquirer/.

  • Global Reporting Initiative. (2000). Sustainability reporting guidelines. Boston, MA: Global Reporting Initiative.

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative. (2002). Sustainability reporting guidelines. Boston, MA: Global Reporting Initiative.

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative. (2006). G3 Sustainability reporting guidelines. Amsterdam: GRI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative. (2013). G4 Sustainability reporting guidelines. Amsterdam: GRI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R. H. (2007). Taking a long view on what we now know about social and environmental accountability and reporting. Issues in Social & Environmental Accounting, 1(2), 169–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R. H., Dey, C., Owen, D., Evans, R., & Zadek, S. (1997). Struggling with the praxis of social accounting: Stakeholders, accountability, audits and procedures. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 10(3), 325–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R., Kouhy, R., & Lavers, S. (1995). Constructing a research database of social and environmental reporting by UK companies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 8(2), 78–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R. H., Owen, D., & Adams, C. (1996). Accounting & accountability: Changes and challenges in corporate social and environmental reporting. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R. H., Owen, D., & Adams, C. (2009). Some theories for social accounting?: A review essay and a tentative pedagogic categorisation of theorisations around social accounting.’ Sustainability, Environmental Performance and Disclosures: 1–54. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

  • Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Günther, E., Hoppe, H., & Poser, C. (2007). Environmental corporate social responsibility of firms in the mining and oil and gas industries: Current status quo of reporting following GRI guidelines. Greener Management International, 53, 7–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haddock-Fraser, J., & Fraser, I. (2008). Assessing corporate environmental reporting motivations: differences between ‘close-to-market’ and ‘business-to-business’ companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(3), 140–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harlow, W. F., Brantley, B. C., & Harlow, R. M. (2011). BP initial image repair strategies after the Deepwater Horizon spill. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 80–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hepburn, C. (2007). Carbon trading: A review of the Kyoto mechanisms. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 32, 375–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, C., & Larrinaga, C. (2014). Sustainability reporting insights from institutional theory. In J. Bebbington, J. Unerman & B. O'Dwyer (Eds.), Sustainability accounting and accountability. UK & New York: Routledge.

  • Hoffman, A. J. (1999). Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S. Chemical Industry. The Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 351–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland, L., & Boon Foo, Y. (2003). Differences in environmental reporting practices in the UK and the US: The legal and regulatory context. The British Accounting Review, 35(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooghiemstra, R. (2000). Corporate communication and impression management—New perspectives why companies engage in corporate social reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(1/2), 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC. (2001). Climate change 2001: The scientific basis. Contribution of working group I to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on climate change. London and New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • IPCC. (2007). Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • IPCC. (2013a). Climate change 2013: The physical science basis: Working group I contribution to the IPCC fifth assessment report (WGI AR5)—Summary for policymakers. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

  • IPCC. (2013b). Human influence on climate clear, IPCC report says. Retrieved November 8, 2013 from http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ar5/press_release_ar5_wgi_en.pdf.

  • IPIECA & API. (2003). Petroleum industry guidelines for reporting greenhouse gas emissions. London: IPIECA.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPIECA & API. (2005). Oil and gas industry guidance on voluntary sustainability reporting : Using environmental, health & safety, social and economic performance indicators. London: IPIECA.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPIECA/API/OGP. (2010). Oil and gas industry guidance on voluntary sustainability reporting (2nd ed.). London: IPIECA.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPIECA/API/OGP. (2011). Petroleum industry guidelines for reporting greenhouse gas emissions (2nd ed.). London: IPIECA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Islam, M. A., & Deegan, C. (2010). Media pressures and corporate disclsoure of social responsibility performance information: A study of two global clothing and sports retail companies. Accounting and Business Research, 40(2), 131–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joseph, C., & Taplin, R. (2011). The measurement of sustainability disclosure: Abundance versus occurrence. Accounting Forum, 35, 19–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffmann, C. Tébar., Less, C., & Teichmann, D. (2012). Corporate greenhouse gas emissions reporting: A stocktaking of government schemes. Paris: OECD.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A. (2003). Trends in sustainability reporting by the Fortune Global 250. Business Strategy and the Environment, 12(5), 279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A. (2005). Environmental reporting by multinationals from the triad: Convergence or divergence? Management International Review, 45(1), 145–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A., & Perego, P. (2010). Determinants of the adoption of sustainability assurance statements: An international investigation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(3), 182–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A., & Pinkse, J. (2005). Business responses to climate change: Identifying emergent strategies. California Management Review, 47(3), 6–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kor, Y. Y., & Leblebici, H. (2005). How do interdependencies among human-capital deployment, development, and diversification strategies affect firms’ financial performance? Strategic Management Journal, 26(10), 967–985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostova, T., & Roth, K. (2002). Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: institutional and relational effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 215–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostova, T., Roth, K., & Dacin, M. T. (2008). Institutional theory in the study of multinational corporations: A critique and new directions. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 994–1006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KPMG. (2005). KPMG international survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2005. Amsterdam: KPMG.

    Google Scholar 

  • KPMG. (2008). KPMG international survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2008. Amsterdam: KPMG.

    Google Scholar 

  • KPMG. (2011). KPMG international survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2011. Amsterdam: KPMG.

    Google Scholar 

  • KPMG UNEP Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) & Unit for Corporate Governance in Africa. (2010). Carrots and sticks: Promoting transparency and sustainability. An update on trends in voluntary and mandatory approaches to sustainability reporting.

  • Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, D., & Kolk, A. (2002). Strategic responses to global climate change: Conflicting pressures on multinationals in the oil industry. Business and Politics, 4(3), 275–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzoni, I., & Pidgeon, N. (2006). Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Climatic Change, 77(1–2), 73–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maltby, J. (1997). Setting its own standards and meeting those standards: Voluntarism versus regulation in environmental reporting. Business Strategy and the Environment, 6(2), 83–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne, M. J., & Adler, R. W. (1999). Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosures content analysis. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 12(2), 237–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon, J., Kang, N., & Gond, J.-P. (2010). Corporate social responsibility and Government in Western Europe and Northeast Asia from a National Governance Systems Perspective, Research Paper Series No. 56-2010- International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility.

  • Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(4), 323–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neu, D., Warsame, H., & Pedwell, K. (1998). Managing public impressions: Environmental disclosures in annual reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23(3), 265–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donovan, G. (2002). Environmental disclosures in the annual report: Extending the applicability and predictive power of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability, 15(3), 344–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, B., Unerman, J., & Hession, E. (2005). User needs in sustainability reporting: Perspectives of stakeholders in Ireland. European Accounting Review, 14(4), 759–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2011). OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohana, B., & Tierney, B. (2009). Sentiment classification of reviews using SentiWordNet. IT&T Conference. Dublin: Dublin Institute of Technology.

  • Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. The Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.

  • Parker, L. D. (2005). Social and environmental accountability research: A view from the commentary box. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 18(6), 842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patten, D. M. (1991). Exposure, legitimacy, and social disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 10(4), 297–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patten, D. M. (1992). Intra-industry environmental disclosures in response to the Alaskan oil spill: A note on legitimacy theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(5), 471–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patten, D. M. (2002). Media exposure, public policy pressure, and environmental disclosure: an examination of the impact of tri data availability. Accounting Forum, 26, 152–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pew Research Centre. (2013). Climate change and financial instability seen as top global threats. Washington, USA.

  • Prado-Lorenzo, J.-M., Rodríguez-Domínguez, L., Gallego-Álvarez, I., & García-Sánchez, I.-M. (2009). Factors influencing the disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions in companies world-wide. Management Decision, 47(7), 1133–1157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pulver, S. (2007a). Importing environmentalism: Explaining petroleos Mexicanos’ Cooperative Climate Policy. Studies in Comparative International Development, 42(3–4), 233–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pulver, S. (2007b). Making sense of corporate environmentalism. Organization & Environment, 20(1), 44–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rankin, M., Windsor, C., & Wahyuni, D. (2011). An investigation of voluntary corporate greenhouse gas emissions reporting in a market governance system: Australian evidence. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 24(8), 1037–1070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratanajongkol, S., Davey, H., & Low, M. (2006). Corporate social reporting in Thailand: The news is all good and increasing. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 3(1), 67–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, R. W. (1992). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(6), 595–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts Environmental Center. (2010). 2010 sustainability reporting of the world’s largest petroleum refining companies. Claremont: Roberts Environmental Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowlands, I. H. (2000). Beauty and the beast? BPs and Exxons positions on global climate change. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 18(3), 339–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 493–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (2013). Institutions and organizations. London: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair-Desgagné, B., & Gozlan, E. (2003). A theory of environmental risk disclosure. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45(2, Supplement 1), 377–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence, C., Husillos, J., & Correa-Ruiz, C. (2010). Cargo cult science and the death of politics: A critical review of social and environmental accounting research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 21(1), 76–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilt, C. A. (1998). The content and disclosure of corporate environmental policies: An Australian study. Asia Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting Conference. Osaka City University, Japan.

  • Ullmann, A. A. (1985). Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the relationships among social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance of U. S. Firms. The Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 540–557.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). (2012). Glossary of climate change acronyms. Retrieved April 4, 2012 from http://unfccc.int/essential_background/glossary/items/3666.php.

  • USEPA. (2012). Glossary of climate change terms. Retrieved April 4, 2012 from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html.

  • van Wensen, K., Broer, W., Klein, J., & Knopf, J. (2011). The state of play in sustainability reporting in the European Union. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • WBCSD & WRI. (2004). The greenhouse gas protocol. A corporate accounting and reporting standard. World Business Council for Sustainable Development and World Resources Institute, Geneva and Washington D.C.

  • Wooten, M., & Hoffman, A. J. (2008). Organizational fields: Past, present and future. The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zehr, S. C. (2000). Public representations of scientific uncertainty about global climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 9(2), 85–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kedge Business School, Rue Antoine Bourdelle, Domaine de Luminy, BP 92, 13 288, Marseille Cedex 9, France

    Breeda Comyns

Authors
  1. Breeda Comyns
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Breeda Comyns.

Appendix

Appendix

See the Table 7.

Table 7 Content analysis index for measuring GHG reporting quality
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Comyns, B. Determinants of GHG Reporting: An Analysis of Global Oil and Gas Companies. J Bus Ethics 136, 349–369 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2517-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2517-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation