title: The Influence of Institutional and Stakeholder Pressures on Carbon Disclosure Strategies: An Investigation in the Global Logistics Industry
Creators: name: Herold, David
Publisher: name: Griffith University
Year: 2018
Subjects: subject: Institutional logics
subject: Stakeholder salience
subject: Carbon disclosure strategies
subject: Carbon reporting
subject: Carbon management practices
subject: Logistics
subject: Transportation
subject: Sustainable logistics
subject: Corporate sustainability management

description: This thesis employs a six study, mixed-method research focusing on extending and expanding upon the literature examining the influences of institutional and stakeholder pressures on carbon management practices and associated carbon disclosure strategies. More specifically, the research investigates how both pressures influence the extent of disclosure in the context of the global logistics industry. In doing so, the thesis provides insights into the mechanisms behind the adoption of carbon disclosure and the effectiveness of carbon management practices. This research responds to previous research in carbon disclosure which has indicated that carbon management practices vary widely due to multiple internal and external pressures. The implications of pressures on carbon management practices have been investigated in diverse contexts such as its relationship to financial performance, carbon emissions reduction, or legitimisation tactics. Yet, the application of carbon management practices and their implications on carbon disclosure strategies and their underlying drivers has received limited research attention, in particular in the context of the global logistics industry. As a result, the first paper of this thesis addresses this gap through a systematic literature review, posing the first research question: RQ1. To what extent have carbon management practices been implemented in the global logistics industry? The results of the systematic literature review showed limited application of carbon management practices in the logistics industry, in particular carbon disclosure research was highly under-represented and was identified as the biggest opportunity for further research. These findings led to the development of Papers B and C, where similarities and differences in carbon reporting and disclosure were examined through an institutional lens. Using case studies from global logistics companies, both papers used a qualitative approach to provide insight into whether these companies follow a symbolic or substantial disclosure approach, and which underlying dominant logic drives carbon disclosure behaviour, in answering the research questions: RQ2. How does the sustainability logic influence carbon disclosure behaviour? RQ2a. Which disclosure behaviour - symbolic or substantial - dominates carbon reporting in the global logistics industry? RQ2b. How does the emergence of sustainability influence the extent of carbon reporting? The findings of this study revealed significant differences in the applied carbon disclosure approaches and their underlying logics. From an institutional logics perspective, corporate carbon disclosure practices are either dominated by a market logic emphasizing the economic benefits of carbon reductions, or by a sustainability logic following a more transparent approach. From a theoretical viewpoint, the study provides a more detailed conceptual foundation by linking the different carbon disclosure strategies to the underlying logics that drive carbon disclosure approaches. However, although both papers provide important insights into the differences in carbon reporting behaviour, the focus on institutional logics provides only limited understanding of the conditions under which these different outcomes arise. This limitation led to the development of Paper D, a conceptual paper that integrates stakeholder theory with institutional theory. Paper D thereby provides a theoretical framework for examining institutional and stakeholder influences, and complements the institutional dimension with a stakeholder dimension, leading to the research question: RQ3. How does the interaction between institutional and stakeholder pressures influence carbon disclosure strategies in global logistics companies? The paper uses both dimensions to build an integrative model that depicts four types of carbon disclosure strategies in the global logistics industry based on the extent of institutional and stakeholder pressures. To examine the extent of institutional pressures, the paper introduces the concept of ‘logics centrality’, representing the position of the sustainability logic, that is, to what extent climate change values are internally integrated into a company’s value system. To examine stakeholder pressures, the paper follows the concept of stakeholder salience, that is, to what extent external stakeholder claims are given priority. The study in Paper D seeks to understand how stakeholder pressures and institutional logics interact, thereby advancing existing research by exploring how organisations are impacted by both firm-level agency and field-level pressures. To apply the model from Paper D, Paper E was developed and represents an empirical study that utilises data collected from Bloomberg ESG and CDP data. In particular, 26 specific carbon management practices were identified in order to examine the degree of institutional as well as stakeholder pressures and their influence on disclosure strategies, posing the research question: RQ4a. To what extent do specific internal and external carbon management practices influence corporate carbon disclosure strategies? RQ4b. From a corporate perspective, what carbon disclosure strategies have been adopted? The findings show that the majority of companies align internal and external carbon management practices, reflecting a consistent strategic approach towards carbon disclosure. Most companies follow either a transparent or a symbolic approach, indicating that these companies are either engaged in both internal and external practices or in neither. From a theoretical viewpoint, the analysis indicates that most companies see the sustainability logic as a core function in the company, while at the same time giving priority to stakeholder claims that go beyond market-driven initiatives, leading to transparency and full carbon disclosure. However, although the study applies the model from Paper D and provides interesting results, it is limited as it does not address whether or how disclosure strategies have shifted over time, leading to the last research questions of this thesis: RQ4c. To what extent have internal and external pressures led to a change in carbon management practices? RQ4d. To what extent have internal and external pressures led to a change in carbon disclosure strategies? Using a similar dataset as in Paper E, the findings show overall shifts to more transparent corporate carbon disclosure strategies between 2010 and 2015, with an increase in applied carbon management practices in both internal and external actions, driven by internal practices. From a theoretical viewpoint, the study shows that companies have increasingly integrated climate change into their value systems, represented by a shift of the sustainability logic closer to the organisational core function. This research applies a more rigorous theoretical and empirical research approach to develop insight through an institutional and stakeholder lens, and therefore extends carbon disclosure research. Papers B and C identify not only the dominant logics behind carbon disclosure behaviour, but also provide interesting insights into the similarities and differences using real-life logistics examples. More importantly, Paper D develops a framework to distinguish between institutional and stakeholder pressures, providing a theoretical framework to examine the influence of these pressures on carbon disclosure strategies. This marks the first conceptual model in carbon disclosure research that combines theoretical constructs from institutional and stakeholder theory to examine and categorise internal and external influences. Finally, Papers E and F examine the influence of carbon management practices on disclosure strategies by applying the model discussed in Paper D. Both Papers E and F empirically categorise carbon disclosure strategies which have not been previously identified in carbon disclosure research, and therefore have the potential to provide a better understanding of carbon disclosure practices and strategies.