Climate Change and Corporate Governance – Did We Get It All Wrong?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The objective of this study was to identify the factors determining a company’s corporate governance related to climate change. We analyzed the effect of various sustainability corporate governance variables on the disclosure level of climate change governance. These variables included facts such as having a dedicated sustainability executive and board committee, the mediating effect of female representation on the board of directors, number of reporting years according to TCFD, membership in a sustainability index, MSCI ESG rating, the existence of a corporate climate transition plan, a mention of the UN Global Compact and GRI, company location, as well as company size and profitability. By adopting a multi-theoretical framework that included stakeholder theory as well the legitimacy and agency theory, the underlying research study used a sample of 100 of the largest global companies by market capitalization and their reporting for the year 2020. Based on 1,400 observations for fiscal year 2020 and using correlation analysis, univariate and linear multiple regressions, we find a positive association between having a climate transition plan in place, being a leader in sustainability according to MSCI ratings, and being a DJSI constituent and the propensity to disclose information on governance for climate change. In addition, we find a company with a dedicated sustainability executive show an increased tendency to be transparent on climate governance issues. Furthermore, having a company location in a developed country is significantly and positively associated with climate change governance. Surprisingly, gender diversity in the corporate board or having a sustainability board committee did not show any significant correlation between a higher climate change governance level. The same was true for companies being active in either the extractive or non-extractive sector. Companies referring to the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) or UN Global Compact also did not score higher in climate change governance. Neither did corporate profitability or size play a significant role. Our results are robust to variations and provide valuable insights for researchers, academics, executives, practitioners as well as regulators. As more and more companies are shifting towards a climate change reporting framework, it is of paramount importance that we are able to determine the contributing variables that lead to effective climate change corporate governance. Our results are inconsistent with stakeholder theory and are strongly suggesting that a diversified board and the existence of a sustainability committee that meets often/sufficiently may not necessarily lead to a higher level of transparency/quality regarding climate change. While more research is needed, knowing that a dedicated sustainability executive as well as having a climate plan in place can make a difference in climate change reporting, can be very beneficial to many corporate stakeholders. Given the current urgent climate change situation and the crucial role that corporation play in it, dedicated sustainability positions and committees need to be established. The findings could be useful for managers as well as governmental standards setter and regulators who are interested in improving corporate practices dealing with climate change. This study applies STATA software with various regression models to empirically test the relationship between CG and other variables and corporate climate change reporting.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».