In recent years, global logistics companies have engaged in an increasing number of voluntary climate change initiatives (Herold & Lee 2017a; Kolk, Levy & Pinkse 2008; Schaltegger & Csutora 2012) in response to growing institutional pressures to reduce carbon emissions and increase transparency (de Villiers & Alexander 2014; Herold & Lee, 2018; Luo 2017; Welbeck 2017). Companies respond to such pressures by disclosing carbon related information aimed at internal audiences (e.g. board members, employees) as well as those that target audiences external to the organisation (e.g. business partners, non-governmental organisations).

In addition, responding to institutional and stakeholder pressures through carbon disclosure is increasingly considered as a key strategic determinant for the company’s long-term sustainability of global logistics companies (CDP 2010; Hrasky 2011; Lee 2012; Massa, Farneti & Scappini 2015), with disclosure of carbon related information either taken proactively to mitigate the risk of potential stakeholders’ backlash or retroactively to integrate stakeholders’ demands and expectations into the company’s operations, structures and processes (Borghei, Leung & Guthrie 2016; de Villiers, Naiker & Van Staden 2011; Hawn & Ioannou 2016; Herold & Lee 2017b).

However, given the wide range of approaches to the mix of internal and external carbon management practices (see e.g. Gibassier & Schaltegger 2015; Hrasky 2011; Kolk, Levy & Pinkse 2008; Lee 2011), the key issue of how the dynamic interaction between external and internal carbon management practices may be associated with a company’s carbon disclosure strategy remains unanswered. Therefore, this paper addresses this gap by asking the following (sub)-question(s):

RQ1. “How do internal and external pressures influence corporate carbon disclosure strategies?”

RQ1a. “To what extent do specific internal and external carbon management practices influence corporate carbon disclosure strategies?”

RQ1b. “What carbon disclosure strategies have been adopted from a corporate perspective?”

The contribution of this paper is twofold. First, we conceptualise a model of carbon disclosure strategies that proposes four ideal types, thus providing an understanding of the dynamic interaction between internal and external management practices and their influence on carbon disclosure strategies. Second, we empirically categorise carbon disclosure strategies within the global logistics industry, thereby advancing the literature on strategic carbon management and disclosure and providing a tool to assess a company’s carbon disclosure position.

Thus, this study presents a more nuanced empirical, as well as theoretical, understanding of the mechanisms through which internal and external carbon management practices influence carbon disclosure strategies. 

References

Borghei, Z, Leung, P & Guthrie, J 2016, 'The nature of voluntary greenhouse gas disclosure–an explanation of the changing rationale: Australian evidence', Meditari Accountancy Research, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 111-133.

CDP 2010, Transport Report, edn, Carbon Disclosure Project, London, <https://www.cdp.net/CDPResults/CDP-Transport-Report.pdf>.

de Villiers, C & Alexander, D 2014, 'The institutionalisation of corporate social responsibility reporting', British Accounting Review, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 198-212.

de Villiers, C, Naiker, V & Van Staden, CJ 2011, 'The effect of board characteristics on firm environmental performance', Journal of Management, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1636-1663.

Gibassier, D & Schaltegger, S 2015, 'Carbon management accounting and reporting in practice: A case study on converging emergent approaches', Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 340-365.

Hawn, O & Ioannou, I 2016, 'Mind the gap: The interplay between external and internal actions in the case of corporate social responsibility', Strategic management journal, vol. 37, no. 13, pp. 2569-2588.

Herold, DM & Lee, K-H 2018b, 'Carbon Disclosure Strategies in the Global Logistics Industry: Similarities and Differences in Carbon Measurement and Reporting', in Hossain, M, Hales, R & Sarker, T (eds), Pathways to a Sustainable Economy : Bridging the Gap between Paris Climate Change Commitments and Net Zero Emissions, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 87-101.

Herold, DM & Lee, K-H 2017a, 'Carbon management in the logistics and transportation sector: An overview and new research directions', Carbon Management, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 79-97.

Herold, DM & Lee, K-H 2017b, 'The Influence of the Sustainability Logic on Carbon Disclosure in the Global Logistics Industry: The Case of DHL, FDX and UPS', Sustainability, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 601.

Hrasky, S 2011, 'Carbon footprints and legitimation strategies: symbolism or action?', Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 174-198.

Kolk, A, Levy, D & Pinkse, J 2008, 'Corporate responses in an emerging climate regime: the institutionalization and commensuration of carbon disclosure', European Accounting Review, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 719-745.

Lee, KH 2011, 'Integrating carbon footprint into supply chain management: The case of Hyundai Motor Company (HMC) in the automobile industry', Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 1216-1223.

Lee, KH 2012, 'Carbon accounting for supply chain management in the automobile industry', Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 36, no. pp. 83-93.

Luo, L 2017, 'The influence of institutional contexts on the relationship between voluntary carbon disclosure and carbon emission performance', Accounting & Finance, vol. no. pp.

Massa, L, Farneti, F & Scappini, B 2015, 'Developing a sustainability report in a small to medium enterprise: process and consequences', Meditari Accountancy Research, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 62-91.

Schaltegger, S & Csutora, M 2012, 'Carbon accounting for sustainability and management. Status quo and challenges', Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 36, no. pp. 1-16.

Welbeck, EE 2017, 'The Influence of Institutional Environment on Corporate Responsibility Disclosures in Ghana', Meditari Accountancy Research, vol. 25, no. 2, pp.