Climate Change and Corporate Governance – Did We Get It All Wrong?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".