Environmental Legitimacy, Green Innovation, and Corporate Carbon Disclosure: Evidence from CDP China 100
- 3.1k Downloads
Firms worldwide are increasingly required to disclose (and make efforts to reduce) their carbon emissions due to the environmental damage associated with climate change. Because there has been no previous literature focusing on the determinants of corporate carbon disclosure integrating environmental legitimacy and green innovation, the present study attempted to develop an original framework to fill the research gap. This study explored the influence of environmental legitimacy (an external informal mechanism) on corporate carbon disclosure, and investigated the role of green innovation (an internal formal mechanism) as a mediator. With the samples of Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) in China from 2008 to 2012, the results demonstrate that environmental legitimacy significantly negatively influences the likelihood of corporate carbon disclosure, and that green process innovation mediates the relationship, while green product innovation has no significant mediating effect. It means that environmental legitimacy not only directly affects the likelihood of corporate carbon disclosure, but also indirectly affects it via green process innovation. Hence, companies must increase both informal and formal mechanisms, i.e., external environmental legitimacy and internal green process innovation, to engage in carbon information disclosure and ensure sustainability.
KeywordsEnvironmental legitimacy Corporate carbon disclosure Green product innovation Green process innovation Carbon Disclosure Project China Emerging economies
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 71202055; 71372064; 71431006), Major project of National Social Sciences Fund of China (Grant No. 15ZDA020), Innovative Research Group National Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71221061), and Key Projects of Philosophy and Social Sciences Research of Ministry of Education of China (Grant No. 13jzd0016). The authors thank the Editors and referees for their helpful comments and suggestions.
- Anderson, D., Sweeney, D., Williams, T., Camm, J., & Cochran, J. (2013). Statistics for business & economics. Boston: Cengage Learning.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.Google Scholar
- Daft, R. (2012). Organization theory and design. Boston: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
- De Villiers, C., & Van Staden, C. J. (2010). A framework for the integration of environmental legitimacy, accountability and proactivity. In: The 6th Asia Pacific interdisciplinary research in accounting (APIRA) conference, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.Google Scholar
- Hockerts, K., & Morsing, M. (2008). A literature review on corporate social responsibility in the innovation process (pp. 1–28). Frederiksberg: Copenhagen Business School (CBS), Center for Corporate Social Responsibility.Google Scholar
- Porter, M. E., & van der Linde, C. (1995). Green and competitive: Ending the stalemate. Harvard Business Review, 73(5), 120–134.Google Scholar
- Rennings, K. (1998). Towards a theory and policy of eco-innovation-neoclassical and (co-) evolutionary perspectives (No. 98-24). ZEW Discussion Papers.Google Scholar