Abstract
Purpose
The current research strives to shed light on how ownership structure can impact carbon emission disclosure.
Design/methodology/approach
The present study is based on S&P BSE 500 Indian firms. Using manual content analysis, carbon emission disclosure data were collected from a final sample of 318 nonfinancial Indian firms over seven years, i.e. from 2016–17 to 2022–23, having 2,226 firm-year observations. The panel regression has been employed to examine the association between ownership structure and carbon emissions disclosure.
Findings
The results of the study suggest that ownership structure variables, such as institutional and foreign ownership, exert a positive and significant influence on carbon emission disclosure. Conversely, block-holder ownership is negatively associated with carbon emission disclosure.
Practical implications
This study enriches the emerging literature on environmental disclosure, climate change, carbon emission disclosure and ownership structure.
Social implications
The present research work provides treasured acumens to corporate managers, investors, regulators and policymakers as the study corroborates that ownership structure has an imperative role in firms' carbon emission disclosure.
Originality/value
Existing literature has determined the impact of ownership structure on environmental disclosure. In contrast, the current research extends the climate change literature by providing novel insights into how ownership structure can influence firms’ carbon emission disclosure. Moreover, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, the present study is the first to scrutinize the relationship between ownership structure and carbon emission disclosure in the Indian context.
Keywords
Citation
Bedi, A. and Singh, B. (2025), "Does ownership structure affect carbon emission disclosure?", Asian Review of Accounting, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 72-88. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARA-11-2023-0307
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2024, Emerald Publishing Limited
1. Introduction
In recent years, the development of global interest in nonfinancial information has given rise to concepts related to sustainability disclosure. These concepts have emerged in response to business operations and how they affect the environment in which they operate. Due to this, numerous stakeholders decided to adopt a corporate accountability strategy for their role and the level of their contribution to achieving their goals (Manes-Rossi et al., 2018; Al Amosh and Mansor, 2021). Further, stakeholders began to continuously check firms’ actions and practices, which prompted firms to follow stakeholders' preferred actions and policies (Al Amosh and Mansor, 2021). Likewise, firms have also realized the potential consequences of ignoring stakeholders’ expectations and have started to consider the best ways to meet the demands of various stakeholders.
According to stakeholder theory, firms must consider the demands and welfare of all stakeholders that are affected by the firm’s operations (Bedi and Singh, 2024a). Carbon emission disclosure is one of the stakeholders’ requirements for firms to disclose their activities and operations related to climate change mitigation. Carbon emission disclosure is also a communicative tool for reporting climate-change operations to various stakeholders. The disclosure reduces any information ambiguity among stakeholders and safeguards the interests of the stakeholders, which further protects the firms from the additional pressures that they might face (Laskar and Gopal Maji, 2018; Al Amosh and Mansor, 2020). Therefore, with an increase in environmental awareness, climate change-related issues fall within the purview of stakeholders’ interests (Khatib et al., 2021; Horisch et al., 2020), which will also give the firm an exceptional event to gain stakeholders’ confidence in the firm’s operations.
Legitimacy theory argues that a firm’s operations should comply with societal norms and values. If society opines that the firm has breached its societal norms, then the legitimacy of the firm is threatened (Deegan, 2002). In recent years, society has paid more attention to climate change activities. In this scenario, reporting carbon emission disclosure to the public will be considered a legitimate act in the eyes of society, which in turn enhances the legitimacy of the firms (Choi et al., 2013; Laskar and Gopal Maji, 2018).
In India, the government has constantly motivated firms to engage in sustainability disclosure activities, as firms are required to report their sustainability initiatives in the Business Responsibility and Sustainability Report voluntarily from FY 2021–22 and mandatorily from FY 2022–23 (SEBI, 2021). Moreover, India is also a signatory to the Paris Climate Change Agreement, which further increases pressure on firms to report their carbon emission disclosures (Charumathi and Rahman, 2019).
A firm’s identity is characterized by numerous indicators, of which corporate ownership structure is one of those indicators that define the identity of a firm. Furthermore, corporate ownership structure influences institutional monitoring and the reasons for firms’ information disclosure (Eng and Mak, 2003). Legal regulations require all listed Indian firms to report their ownership structure details in their annual reports. Ownership structure variables such as block-holders’ ownership, state ownership, foreign ownership and institutional ownership are important factors that influence firms' decisions to report their climate change-related activities (Al Amosh and Mansor, 2021). Therefore, current research examines the influence of ownership structure on carbon emission disclosure in the Indian context.
The present study contributes to the extant literature on sustainability disclosure, climate change, carbon emission disclosure and ownership structure. First, the existing literature documents the influence of ownership structure on environmental reporting (Al Amosh and Mansor, 2021) and neglects the most important environmental aspect, i.e. climate change (Elsayih et al., 2018). Therefore, this study fills the knowledge gap by using the lens of legitimacy and stakeholder theory and provides evidence of the effect of ownership structure on carbon emission disclosure. Second, the literature concentrates on highly industrialized economies and neglects emerging markets. Hence, this study examines the effect of ownership structure on carbon emission disclosure by considering a broad segment of firms operating in emerging markets such as India. In addition to this, India is the third-largest carbon emitter and fastest-growing economy in the world. Henceforth, it becomes imperative to explore the role of ownership structure in carbon emission disclosure, as foreign present and potential investors are interested in knowing about the contributors to carbon emission disclosure. Besides, the current work is the first of its kind to investigate the influence of ownership structure on carbon emission disclosure in the Indian context.
The results of this study corroborate that institutional ownership plays an important role in carbon emission disclosure, as they are considered powerful stakeholders who can pressure firms to implement carbon emission disclosure practices. Analogously, foreign ownership positively ameliorates carbon emission disclosure, as they have expertise in dealing with disclosure activities (Kim et al., 2021). On the other hand, firms with high block-holder ownership tend to report less carbon emission disclosure as they seek to maintain a monopoly over relevant information. State ownership is not associated with carbon emissions disclosure.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 deals with the theoretical framework and hypothesis development, Section 3 defines the research design, Section 4 presents the results and discussion of the study and Section 5 deals with the conclusion of the study.
2. Theoretical framework and hypothesis development
2.1 Theoretical framework
Several theories, such as stakeholder and legitimacy theories discussed the corporate disclosure phenomenon (Zamil et al., 2021). Freeman (1984) defined a stakeholder as “any group or individual that can affect or be affected by the accomplishment of organizational objectives.” The theory argues that firms are required to consider the claims of all parties that are affected by their actions. The theory also presumes that firms disclose information to meet the various needs of stakeholders (Al Amosh and Mansor, 2021; Al Amosh and Khatib, 2022). Authors such as Schaltegger et al. (2006) argue that stakeholders are giving more attention to nonfinancial disclosures. Furthermore, firms have also started realizing the importance of reporting sustainability information to diverse groups of stakeholders (Pajuelo Moreno and Duarte-Atoche, 2019). In this context, carbon emission disclosure is an effective way to communicate with numerous stakeholders (Bae et al., 2018). Carbon emission disclosure will be perceived by stakeholders in an optimistic way, which can maximize the shareholders’ value in the long term. Therefore, firms should consider the nonfinancial disclosure needs of the investors, as it is an important aspect that can affect the corporate reputation and long-term performance of the firm.
The other theoretical framework supporting the firm’s environmental or sustainability disclosure is the legitimacy theory. This theory was developed by Dowling and Pfeffer in 1975. Legitimacy theory proposes that “organizations continually seek to ensure that they are perceived as operating within the bounds and norms of their respective societies, i.e. they attempt to ensure that outside parties perceive their activities as being “legitimate” (Deegan, 2013, p. 343). According to Suchman (1995), firms should act as per the prevailing social values, orders, and norms. The legitimacy of the firm is threatened if society believes that the organization has breached social values and norms (Deegan, 2002). The concept of the “legitimacy gap” has been given considerable attention, which happens when firms violate the prevailing social value system (Moloi and Marwala, 2020). Therefore, firms should take proactive initiatives to avoid a legitimacy gap and legitimize their corporate existence. The most imperative initiatives are combating climate change and reporting carbon emission disclosures to stakeholders and the public (Ching and Gerab, 2017). Both these initiatives legitimize corporate existence in the eyes of society (Choi et al., 2013).
2.2 Block-holders ownership and carbon emission disclosure
Block-holders have a critical influence on corporate decisions as they direct firms to engage in specific plans and policies (Al-Janadi et al., 2016). Stakeholder theory asserts that influential shareholders are more likely to pressure firms to report environmental information (Naser et al., 2006). Hence, block-holders who hold significant amounts of shares in a firm are likely to pressure management to reveal social and environmental information to have external legitimization (Baba and Baba, 2021).
Nevertheless, Raimo et al. (2020) document that block-holders restrict the information disclosure as they possess all insider information in contrast to minority shareholders. Chithambo et al. (2020) argue that block-holders align with managers, which results in conflict of interests with minority shareholders. Similarly, Sengupta (2004) argues that block-holders try to maintain the monopoly of information to achieve information excellence. Huang and Kung (2010) observed that firms with block-holder ownership disclose less environmental information. Likewise, Matolcsy et al. (2012) validate that block-holders had a negative influence on environmental disclosure as they do not want to invest in environmental disclosure activities. Consistently, Liesen et al. (2015) document that firms with a block-holder ownership structure would have less environmental reporting. Shin et al. (2020) evinced that block-holder ownership negatively affects carbon transparency. Similarly, Chithambo et al. (2020) corroborate that block-holders have access to all pertinent information, which causes less greenhouse gas disclosure. Hence, the study hypothesized that:
There is a negative association between block-holders ownership and carbon emission disclosure.
2.3 Institutional ownership and carbon emission disclosure
Institutional investors are considered more powerful than individual investors. The justification behind this can be that they play an imperative role in corporate disclosure policies, especially carbon emission disclosure (Jaggi et al., 2018; Hermawan et al., 2018; Akbaş and Canikli, 2018). Stakeholder and legitimacy theories presume that institutional investors have a significant influence on managerial decisions to report carbon emission information (Cotter and Najah, 2012; Jaggi et al., 2018). Stakeholder theory claims that carbon emission disclosure will meet the demands of institutional investors (Cotter and Najah, 2012). Consistently, legitimacy theory contends that firms should provide more carbon information to convey to institutional investors that the firm is operating in the best interests of society (Jaggi et al., 2018).
In this regard, Smith et al. (2008) documented that institutional shareholders have more influence on environmental disclosure than regulatory authorities. Moreover, Harmes (2011) observed that climate-conscious institutional shareholders can switch their investments if managers do not incorporate climate change policies. Likewise, Kim and Lyon (2011) evinced that climate-conscious institutional investors can put pressure on corporate managers to enhance climate change disclosure. Furthermore, Cotter and Najah (2012) delineate a positive relationship between institutional ownership and carbon emission disclosure. Similarly, Jaggi et al. (2018) suggested that institutional ownership has a positive influence on carbon information disclosure.
Conversely, Mackenzie et al. (2016) observed a negative relationship between institutional ownership and carbon emission disclosure. Additionally, Hermawan et al. (2018) document that institutional ownership plays an insignificant role in carbon emission disclosure. Despite the presumption of an association between institutional ownership and carbon emission disclosure, it needs to be confirmed in a new environment. Thus, this study posits the following hypothesis:
There is a positive association between institutional ownership and carbon emission disclosure.
2.4 Foreign ownership and carbon emission disclosure
Earlier literature argues that foreign owners play an imperative role in environmental disclosure as they have more power to monitor management than local investors (Gerged, 2021; Al Amosh and Mansor, 2020; Kim et al., 2021). The presence of foreign owners strengthens the aspirations of stakeholders (Suchman, 1995), which gives legitimacy to the activities of the firms (Alkhawaldeh, 2012). The stakeholder theory holds that environmental disclosure will meet the demands of foreign shareholders, which enhances the confidence of foreign investors. This also increases firms’ environmental and social legitimacy (Al Amosh and Mansor, 2020).
In this context, La Porta et al. (1999) suggest that foreign investors invest in those firms that have transparent disclosure activities to reduce information asymmetry. Ezhilarasi and Kabra (2017) claim that foreign investors demand high environmental disclosure to acquire information related to environmental risks and opportunities. Similarly, Al Amosh and Mansor (2020) delineate that foreign ownership ameliorates environmental disclosure, legitimizing firms' existence. Furthermore, Kim et al. (2021) document that foreign investors can rely solely on a firm’s information disclosure to obtain information related to environmental activities. Therefore, they demand adequate environmental disclosure from firms to avoid environmental risk. Similarly, Al Amosh and Mansor (2021) document that foreign owners may direct firms to adopt policies related to sustainability disclosure. Consistently, Baba and Baba (2021) evinced that foreign owners demand more environmental information due to their geographical separation. Similarly, Zarefar et al. (2023) document that firms with foreign ownership components report more sustainability information. In light of previous literature, the study hypothesized that:
There is a positive association between foreign ownership and carbon emission disclosure.
2.5 State ownership and carbon emission disclosure
According to legitimacy theory, state ownership is a crucial factor in motivating firms to report environmental activities (Al Amosh and Mansor, 2020). Similarly, stakeholder theory presumes that reporting environmental information can meet the demands of the state related to environmental activities (Faisal et al., 2018). In light of this, Ghazali (2007) argues that firms with the government as a substantial shareholder tend to disclose more environmental information. Analogously, Calza et al. (2016) document that firms with state ownership have more environmental disclosure, as the government can influence the environmental decisions of managers. Similarly, Hermawan et al. (2018) evinced that state-owned firms are more likely to provide carbon emission disclosure. Consistently, Giannarakis et al. (2018) confirm the positive effect of state ownership on climate change disclosure by highlighting that the state can fulfill the social and environmental objectives by providing adequate climate change disclosure. Further, He et al. (2019) delineate that state-owned firms have high carbon emission disclosure to meet the climate change demands of the state. However, other academicians such as Xiao et al. (2004) and Faisal et al. (2018) argue that state ownership does not have any association with carbon emission disclosure. Despite the presumption of an association between state ownership and carbon emission disclosure, it must be confirmed in a new environment. Thus, this study posits the following hypothesis:
There is a positive association between state ownership and carbon emission disclosure.
3. Research design and data
3.1 Sample
The study strives to investigate the role of ownership structure on carbon emission disclosure. The sample engaged in the current research consists of BSE 500-listed Indian firms. In line with previous scholarly work, the study has omitted all financial firms due to different accounting and reporting practices (Alsaifi et al., 2019). Further, the study has excluded those firms for which complete data were not available. The final sample comprises 318 nonfinancial Indian firms with 2,226 firm-year observations. The current work covers seven years, starting from 2016–17 to 2022–23.
3.2 Measures
3.2.1 Carbon emission disclosure
The data on carbon emission disclosure were collected manually from the annual and sustainability reports of the sample firms. To gauge carbon emission disclosure, this study used the carbon emission disclosure index developed by Bedi and Singh (2024a). The rationale for selecting this index is that it is one of the comprehensive indexes that represent firms’ activities toward climate change. The index was prepared by considering various climate change-related international frameworks such as the Climate Disclosure Standard Board (CDSB), Global Framework for Climate Risk Disclosure (2006), GRI-305 emission standards, Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure (TCFD), Climate Disclosure Project (CDP) and GHG protocol. Further, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) guidelines on the SEBI Business Responsibility and Sustainability Report are also considered in that index. Therefore, manual content analysis has been performed on 2,226 firm-year observations to gauge the carbon emission disclosure of Indian firms. This study computes the disclosure score for each firm as the ratio of the total disclosure score to the maximum possible disclosure score of the firm.
3.2.2 Ownership structure
In publicly traded firms, the ownership structure is based on the division of the firm’s equity and property rights among the shareholders (Panda and Bag, 2019). In current academic work, ownership structure variables such as block-holder ownership, institutional ownership, foreign ownership and state ownership have been considered. According to previous literature, block-holder ownership, institutional ownership, foreign ownership and state ownership play an imperative role in environmental disclosure (Jaggi et al., 2018; Akbaş and Canikli, 2018; Al Amosh and Khatib, 2022). Block-holder ownership is gauged as a proportion of ownership by shareholders with 3% or more (Chithambo et al., 2022), institutional ownership is measured as a percentage of shares held by institutional shareholders (Jaggi et al., 2018), foreign ownership is computed as a percentage of shares held by foreign shareholders (Kim et al., 2021) and state ownership is measured as a percentage of shares held by the government.
3.3 Econometric specifications
The current study employed a panel regression technique owing to the nature of the data. Both fixed and random effects can address the estimation issue in panel regression. However, the Hausman test statistic is used to determine whether a fixed or random effect model is appropriate. Additionally, the non-violation of the autocorrelation and multicollinearity assumption was checked using the Durbin–Watson test and correlation analysis. Moreover, to address any concerns related to autocorrelation, heteroscedasticity and normality, the study has assessed robust standard errors (Chithambo et al., 2020).
To test the formulated hypothesis, the following model is used:
Table 1 defines the variables used in the current research.
4. Empirical results
4.1 Descriptive statistics
Table 2 reports the descriptive statistics of carbon emission disclosure. It evinced that carbon emission disclosure of seven years (i.e. from FY 2016–17 to FY 2022–23) has a mean value of 0.25. Besides, the minimum value is zero, while the maximum is 0.93, which indicates that there is huge variation in the carbon emission disclosure practices of sample firms. This variation may be because sample years covered both the voluntary and mandatory periods of the SEBI Business Responsibility and Sustainability Report, i.e. the voluntary period from FY 2016–17 to FY 2021–22 and the mandatory period from FY 2022–23. The result corroborates the findings of Jaggi et al. (2018), which put forward that Indian firms are associated with lower pollution disclosure than firms from Japan, Canada and European countries.
Further, Table 2 also reports the descriptive statistics of voluntary and mandatory periods separately to better assess the carbon emission disclosure practices of Indian firms. The results manifest that from FY 2016–17 to FY 2021–22, the mean value of carbon emission disclosure ranges from 0.119 to 0.298; however, it suddenly rises to 0.549 in the year 2022–23. This shows that in the voluntary period, firms are disclosing less, while in the mandatory period, they are under obligation to report carbon emission information. Therefore, it concludes that mandatory provisions have improved the carbon emission disclosure of Indian firms.
Table 3 exhibits the descriptive statistics of ownership structure and control variables. The results show that the mean value of block-holders’ ownership is 61.85, while the minimum is 5 and the maximum is 100. This exhibits that sample firms have high block-holders’ ownership. The results are as per the findings of Madhani (2016) and Al Amosh and Mansor (2021). The mean value of institutional ownership is 24.76, which depicts that an average of 25% of sample firms have institutional shareholdings. The maximum value of institutional ownership is 86%, which is as per the findings of Li et al. (2023). The analysis indicates that foreign investors have an average of 22.6% shareholdings in a firm. Besides, the minimum value of state ownership is 0, while the maximum is 99 (with a mean value of 6.83%), suggesting that there are some firms in which the government is a majority shareholder. The result corroborates the findings of Al Amosh and Mansor (2021).
Concerning control variables, analysis manifests that sample firms have an average of ten directors on board, which is consistent with the findings of Lipton and Lorsch (1992). The board independence shows that an average of 51% of the board of directors of sample firms are independent, which is consistent with the findings of Bedi and Singh (2024b). Further, the results indicate that gender diversity has an average value of 13%, suggesting that on average 13% of the board of directors of sample firms are female. The minimum value of firm size is Rs. 94.13 crores, while the maximum is Rs. 978,899 crores (with a mean value of Rs. 21,036 crores). The minimum value of firm age is one year, while the maximum is 160 years (with a mean value of 43 years). Further, ROA has a minimum value of Rs. −128 crores and a maximum value of Rs. 97.08 crores, suggesting that some of the sample firms have negative firm performance. The sales growth shows a minimum value of Rs. −99 crores, with a maximum value of Rs. 475.51 crores, indicating that some sample firms have negative sales growth during the sample period.
4.2 Correlation coefficients
Table 4 shows the correlation coefficients along with the level of significance (wherein p < 0.01, p < 0.05, and p < 0.1 show the statistical significance at a 1, 5 and 10% level) between ownership structure, carbon emission disclosure and control variables. The table exhibits that institutional ownership, foreign ownership, board size, board independence, gender diversity, firm size, firm age and sales growth have a significant and positive correlation with carbon emission disclosure. Conversely, block-holders’ ownership has a significant and negative correlation with carbon emission disclosure. The table reports that the correlation coefficients of all the sample variables are below ±0.9, which highlights that the present analysis may not have a multicollinearity problem (Field, 2009).
4.3 Regression analysis and discussion
The current research work has answered the question of how ownership structure affects carbon emission disclosure. The analysis is performed on a sample of BSE 500 Indian firms for the period of seven years from 2016–17 to 2022–23. The results evinced that ownership structure has a significant effect on carbon emission disclosure. Further, firms with institutional and foreign ownership have a high carbon emission disclosure. Conversely, block-holder-owned firms are less likely to report their carbon emission information.
The results reported in Table 5 show that block-holder ownership has a negative association with carbon emission disclosure (at a 5% level of significance) in Model V with the presence of control variables, leading to acceptance of Hypothesis (H1). This evinced that firms with high block-holder ownership would be less likely to report their carbon emission information as compared to firms with low block-holder ownership. The justification behind this can be that block-holders try to maintain a monopoly over pertinent information that will affect the investment decisions of stakeholders. The results are according to the findings of Liesen et al. (2015), Chithambo et al. (2020) and Shin et al. (2020). Further, results demonstrate that institutional ownership has a positive association with carbon emission disclosure (at a 1% level of significance) in Model V with the presence of control variables. Additionally, the coefficient of institutional ownership and carbon emission disclosure is positive (at a 1% level of significance) in Model II without the inclusion of control variables. This led to acceptance of Hypothesis (H2), i.e. there is a positive association between institutional ownership and carbon emission disclosure. The results highlight that firms with high institutional shareholdings are more likely to disclose their carbon emission information than firms with low institutional shareholdings. The results validate the stakeholder theory that argues that institutional investors play a critical role in corporate disclosure as they are considered powerful stakeholders who influence the carbon emission reporting of firms (Jaggi et al., 2018; Akbaş and Canikli, 2018; Hermawan et al., 2018).
Besides, the results manifest that foreign ownership has a significant and positive association with carbon emission disclosure (at a 5% significance level) in Model V with the inclusion of control variables. Further, the coefficient of foreign ownership and carbon emission disclosure is positive (at a 1% significance level) in Model III without the presence of control variables. This led to acceptance of Hypothesis (H3) i.e. there is a positive association between foreign ownership and carbon emission disclosure, indicating that firms having the presence of foreign investors are more likely to report their carbon emission disclosure. The justification behind this view can be that foreign investors demand information transparency, which increases the likelihood of carbon emission disclosure and ultimately leads to a reduction in information ambiguity among foreign investors and firms (Kim et al., 2021). The results also suggest that foreign expertise is crucial in promoting carbon emission disclosure in emerging economies (Al Amosh and Mansor, 2021). Further, the results sync with the findings of Kim et al. (2021), Al Amosh and Mansor (2021) and Zarefar et al. (2023).
On the contrary, state ownership has an insignificant association with carbon emission disclosure in Model V with the presence of control variables. Further, the individual effect of state ownership on carbon emission disclosure was also checked in Model IV and corroborates that there is an insignificant association between state ownership and carbon emission disclosure. This rejects the Hypothesis (H4), i.e. there is a positive association between state ownership and carbon emission disclosure. The justification of the results is that the main aim of the state-owned firms is societal welfare and less indulgence in disclosure activities (Faisal et al., 2018). Similarly, Chu et al. (2012) evinced that since the firm is owned by the state, they may not need to report their climate change activities because their operations are protected by the government. The results confirm the findings of Xiao et al. (2004) and Faisal et al. (2018).
The Hausman test statistic is used to determine whether a fixed effect or random effect model is appropriate for regression analysis. The Hausman test statistics are reported in Table 5. The Hausman values show that the random effect model is appropriate for Models I, II, III and IV as the value is greater than 0.05. Further, the fixed effect model is appropriate for Model V as the value is less than 0.05. The Durbin–Watson test is a statistical test used to find the autocorrelation in the regression residuals. Table 5 reports the Durbin–Watson test value of the various regression models. Models 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 have a Durbin–Watson value of 0.72, 0.73, 0.72, 0.72 and 1.03. Further, to address any issue related to autocorrelation, robust standard errors are assessed. Besides, the R-squared value of Model V explains 36 % variation in the model, which is captured by all the variables taken into consideration.
Table 6 provides a summary of the results. It indicates the hypothesis accepted or rejected, the direction of the relationship and conformity with previous studies. Table 6 manifests that Hypotheses 1–3 are accepted, which highlights that block-holders’ have a negative association with carbon emission disclosure, while institutional and foreign ownership have a positive association with carbon emission disclosure. However, hypothesis 4 is rejected, indicating that state ownership does not have any impact on carbon emission disclosure.
5. Conclusion
The current study strives to test the impact of ownership structure on carbon emission disclosure by considering BSE 500 Indian firms for seven years from 2016–17 to 2022–23. The regression model is run on a final sample of 2,226 firm-year observations, comprising 318 nonfinancial Indian firms. The study considers four ownership structure variables, i.e. block-holder ownership, institutional ownership, foreign ownership and state ownership. The analysis of regression results suggests that ownership structure plays an immense role in carbon emission disclosure. Further, institutional and foreign ownership have a significant and positive association with carbon emission disclosure. Conversely, block-holder-owned firms are less likely to report their carbon emission information. Besides, state ownership does not have any influence on carbon emission disclosure. Therefore, results corroborate that ownership structure plays a critical role in carbon emission disclosure as it impacts the carbon reporting practices of sample firms.
The results have provided vital implications for many parties, such as corporate managers, regulators, policymakers, investors and society. On the theoretical ground, the current study adds enriching insights to the existing literature on ownership structure by examining the role of ownership structure on carbon emission disclosure in emerging markets like India. Further, the study validates the legitimacy and stakeholder theory that presumes that stakeholders such as institutional, foreign and block-holders have an imperative role in carbon emission reporting as these stakeholders pressure the firms to report as per their interests.
On policy grounds, the findings provide valuable insights to regulators on the effect of ownership structure on carbon emission disclosure of Indian firms, as regulators, in cooperation with policymakers, develop such policies to promote foreign investment in India by developing new legislation related to carbon emission disclosure, which will increase the flow of foreign capital in India and boost the economic development. Besides, results suggest that institutional investors play a positive role in carbon emission disclosure. Therefore, policymakers and regulators should make such policies and regulations to increase the institutional shareholdings in firms to enhance the carbon emission reporting of Indian firms. Further, regulators should pay adequate attention to ownership dispersal, as ownership concentration often prevents firms from reporting climate change information and activities related to it.
On practical grounds, the study provides enriching insights to investors, as they can use these results to determine the carbon profile of firms by interpreting the ownership structure. Further, climate-conscious investors can plan their investment portfolio based on the ownership structure of firms, as it has an imperative role in carbon emission disclosure. Moreover, the results highlight the positive impact of institutional and foreign ownership on carbon emission disclosure. Hence, institutional and foreign shareholders can put pressure on the firms to enhance climate change-related disclosure. In addition, to attract foreign investment, firms can disclose more carbon emission information. Besides, current research provides treasured insights to firms in other emerging markets. Regulators, investors and policymakers of other emerging countries can use these results as reference points to determine the role of ownership structure on carbon emission disclosure.
As with most experimental studies, the current study acknowledges several limitations. Firstly, this study was limited to the nonfinancial sector. Therefore, future research can deal with financial sector firms. Further, comparative studies for different sectors will also enrich the existing literature on ownership structure. Secondly, current academic work analyzes the impact of ownership structure on carbon emission disclosure in the emerging Indian context. Future research work could determine the role of ownership structure on carbon emission disclosure in other emerging countries. Thirdly, the current study has collected carbon emission disclosure data from annual and sustainability reports of Indian firms. There may be chances that firms may have disclosed in any other form, such as website-related disclosure, which are not taken into consideration in present research. Thus, future research work could examine the website-related carbon emission disclosure of firms to better assess their carbon behavior. Additionally, comparative analysis can also be performed between developing and developed countries about how ownership structure can influence the carbon reporting of firms.
Variable definition
| Variables | Expected Sign. | Acronym | Ownership structure | Measurement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon emission disclosure | DIS | N/A | The ratio of the total disclosure score divided by the maximum possible disclosure score for the firm | |
| Block-holders’ | – | Block_own | Block-holders’ ownership | The proportion of ownership by shareholders with 3% or more |
| Institutional | + | Inst_own | Institutional ownership | Percentage of shares held by institutional shareholders |
| Foreign | + | For_own | Foreign ownership | Percentage of shares held by foreign investors |
| State | ± | State_own | State ownership | Percentage of shares held by government |
| Board size | ± | B_size | Control | The natural log of the total number of directors on the board |
| Board independence | ± | B_IND | Control | The proportion of independent directors on the board |
| Gender diversity | + | G_DIV | Control | The proportion of women directors on the board |
| Firm size | + | Size | Control | The natural log of the total number of employees |
| Firm age | + | Age | Control | The natural log of the number of years of operation since its inception |
| Firm performance | ± | ROA | Control | Profit after tax divided by total assets |
| Sales growth | + | Growth | Control | Percentage change in sales |
Source(s): Created by authors
Descriptive statistics of carbon emission disclosure
| Carbon emission disclosure | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntary period | Mandatory period | Total | ||||||
| Particulars | 2016–17 | 2017–18 | 2018–19 | 2019–20 | 2020–21 | 2021–22 | 2022–23 | 2016–17 to 2022–23 |
| Mean | 0.119 | 0.140 | 0.166 | 0.194 | 0.225 | 0.298 | 0.549 | 0.255 |
| Standard deviation | 0.127 | 0.144 | 0.160 | 0.173 | 0.185 | 0.213 | 0.182 | 0.156 |
| Minimum | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Maximum | 0.627 | 0.613 | 0.693 | 0.733 | 0.720 | 0.787 | 0.933 | 0.933 |
| Number of observations | 354 | 354 | 354 | 354 | 354 | 354 | 354 | 2,226 |
Source(s): Created by authors
Descriptive statistics of ownership structure and control variables
| Variables | N | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Standard deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Block_own | 2,226 | 5 | 100 | 61.85 | 15.58 |
| Inst_own | 2,226 | 0 | 85.59 | 24.76 | 13.73 |
| For_own | 2,226 | 0 | 84.68 | 22.6 | 21.15 |
| State_own | 2,226 | 0 | 99 | 6.83 | 20.48 |
| B_size | 2,226 | 3 | 24 | 10.52 | 2.81 |
| B_INDP | 2,226 | 0 | 1 | 0.51 | 0.12 |
| G_DIV | 2,226 | 0 | 1 | 0.13 | 0.06 |
| Size | 2,226 | 94.13 | 978,899 | 21,036 | 62,976 |
| Age | 2,226 | 1 | 160 | 43 | 24 |
| ROA | 2,226 | −128 | 97.08 | 8.92 | 10.93 |
| Growth | 2,226 | −99 | 475.51 | 14.19 | 34.49 |
Source(s): Created by authors
Correlation coefficients
| Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DIS | 1 | |||||||||||
| 2 | Block_own | −0.05** | 1 | ||||||||||
| 3 | Inst_own | 0.25*** | −0.18*** | 1 | |||||||||
| 4 | For_own | 0.11** | −0.06*** | 0.30*** | 1 | ||||||||
| 5 | State_own | 0.04 | 0.27*** | −0.08*** | −0.02*** | 1 | |||||||
| 6 | B_size | 0.11** | −0.04* | 0.17*** | −0.00 | 0.24*** | 1 | ||||||
| 7 | B_INDP | 0.05** | −0.15*** | 0.13*** | 0.04 | −0.31*** | −0.08*** | 1 | |||||
| 8 | G_DIV | 0.17*** | −0.04** | 0.04** | 0.10*** | −0.14*** | −0.36*** | 0.14*** | 1 | ||||
| 9 | Size | 0.44*** | −0.00 | 0.29*** | 0.02*** | 0.02*** | 0.18*** | 0.08** | 0.03** | 1 | |||
| 10 | Age | 0.17*** | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.08*** | 0.09*** | 0.18*** | 0.05*** | −0.00 | 0.03*** | 1 | ||
| 11 | ROA | −0.01 | 0.04** | 0.16*** | 0.05*** | −0.03 | 0.02 | 0.06*** | −0.00 | −0.00** | −0.00 | 1 | |
| 12 | Growth | 0.05** | −0.01 | −0.06*** | −0.05*** | 0.00 | 0.00 | −0.00 | −0.02 | −0.06 | 0.06*** | 0.13*** | 1 |
Note(s): ***p < 0.01 **p < 0.05 *p < 0.1
Source(s): Created by authors
Regression results
| Variables | Model I | Model II | Model III | Model IV | Model V |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Random effects | Random effects | Random effects | Random effects | Fixed effects | |
| Block_own | −0.03 | −0.08** | |||
| Inst_own | 0.05*** | 0.02*** | |||
| For_own | 0.02*** | 0.01** | |||
| State_own | 0.01 | 0.00 | |||
| B_size | −0.08*** | ||||
| B_INDP | −0.03 | ||||
| G_DIV | 0.52*** | ||||
| Size | 0.00 | ||||
| Age | 0.97*** | ||||
| ROA | −0.00 | ||||
| Growth | 0.00*** | ||||
| Observations | 2,226 | 2,226 | 2,226 | 2,226 | 2,226 |
| Durbin–Watson value | 0.72 | 0.73 | 0.72 | 0.72 | 1.03 |
| Hausman test value | 0.75 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.16 | 0.00 |
| R-squared | – | – | – | – | 0.36 |
Note(s): ***p < 0.01 **p < 0.05 *p < 0.1
Source(s): Created by authors
Summary of results
| Variables | Sign | Hypothesis | Confirms the results of previous studies |
|---|---|---|---|
| Block_own | −** | Hypothesis (1) accepted | Liesen et al. (2015) Chithambo et al. (2020) Shin et al. (2020) |
| Inst_own | +*** | Hypothesis (2) accepted | Jaggi et al. (2018) Akbaş and Canikli (2018) Hermawan et al. (2018) |
| For_own | +** | Hypothesis (3) accepted | Kim et al. (2021) Al Amosh and Khatib (2021) Zarefar et al. (2023) |
| State_own | + (insig) | Hypothesis (4) rejected | Xiao et al. (2004) Faisal et al. (2018) |
Note(s): ***p < 0.01 **p < 0.05 *p < 0.1; (+) denotes positive relationship; (−) shows negative relationship; insig represents insignificant association
Source(s): Created by authors
References
Akbaş, H.E. and Canikli, S. (2018), “Determinants of voluntary greenhouse gas emission disclosure: an empirical investigation on Turkish firms”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-24, doi: 10.3390/su11010107.
Al Amosh, H. and Khatib, S.F. (2022), “Ownership structure and environmental, social and governance performance disclosure: the moderating role of the board independence”, Journal of Business and Socio-Economic Development, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 49-66, doi: 10.1108/jbsed-07-2021-0094.
Al Amosh, H. and Mansor, N. (2020), “The implications of ownership structure on the environmental disclosure in Jordan”, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 330-346, doi: 10.6007/ijarbss/v10-i3/7054.
Al Amosh, H. and Mansor, N. (2021), “Disclosure of integrated reporting elements by industrial companies: evidence from Jordan”, Journal of Management and Governance, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 121-145, doi: 10.1007/s10997-020-09541-x.
Al-Janadi, Y., Rahman, R.A. and Alazzani, A. (2016), “Does government ownership affect corporate governance and corporate disclosure?”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 31 Nos 8/9, pp. 871-890, doi: 10.1108/maj-12-2015-1287.
Alkhawaldeh, A.A. (2012), “Effects of family and foreign ownership structure on Jordanian credit risk assessments”, International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, Vol. 90 No. 2012, pp. 92-113.
Alsaifi, K., Elnahass, M. and Salama, A. (2019), “Carbon disclosure and financial performance: UK environmental policy”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 1-16, doi: 10.1002/bse.2426.
Baba, B.U. and Baba, U.A. (2021), “The effect of ownership structure on social and environmental reporting in Nigeria: the moderating role of intellectual capital disclosure”, Journal of Global Responsibility, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 210-244, doi: 10.1108/jgr-06-2019-0060.
Bae, S.M., Masud, M., Kaium, A. and Kim, J.D. (2018), “A cross-country investigation of corporate governance and corporate sustainability disclosure: a signaling theory perspective”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 8, p. 2611, doi: 10.3390/su10082611.
Bedi, A. and Singh, B. (2024a), “Unraveling the impact of stakeholder pressure on carbon disclosure in an emerging economy”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 703-718, doi: 10.1108/srj-04-2023-0198.
Bedi, A. and Singh, B. (2024b), “Reconnoitering the impact of corporate governance on carbon emission disclosure in an emerging setting”, International Journal of Law and Management. doi: 10.1108/ijlma-11-2023-0251.
Calza, F., Profumo, G. and Tutore, I. (2016), “Corporate ownership and environmental proactivity”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 369-389, doi: 10.1002/bse.1873.
Charumathi, B. and Rahman, H. (2019), “Do women on boards influence climate change disclosures to CDP?–evidence from large Indian companies”, Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 5-31, doi: 10.14453/aabfj.v13i2.2.
Ching, H.Y. and Gerab, F. (2017), “Sustainability reports in Brazil through the lens of signaling, legitimacy and stakeholder theories”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 95-110, doi: 10.1108/srj-10-2015-0147.
Chithambo, L., Tingbani, I., Agyapong, G.A., Gyapong, E. and Damoah, I.S. (2020), “Corporate voluntary greenhouse gas reporting: stakeholder pressure and the mediating role of the chief executive officer”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 1666-1683, doi: 10.1002/bse.2460.
Chithambo, L., Tauringana, V., Tingbani, I. and Achiro, L. (2022), “Stakeholder pressure and greenhouses gas voluntary disclosures”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 159-172, doi: 10.1002/bse.2880.
Choi, B., Lee, D. and Psaros, J. (2013), “An analysis and explanation of Australian company carbon emission disclosures”, Pacific Accounting Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 58-79, doi: 10.1108/01140581311318968.
Chu, C.I., Chatterjee, B. and Brown, A. (2012), “The current status of greenhouse gas reporting by Chinese companies”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 114-139, doi: 10.1108/02686901311284531.
Cotter, J. and Najah, M.M. (2012), “Institutional investor influence on global climate change disclosure practices”, Australian Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 169-187, doi: 10.1177/0312896211423945.
Deegan, C. (2002), “Introduction: the legitimizing effect of social and environmental disclosures. Accounting”, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 282-311, doi: 10.1108/09513570210435852.
Deegan, C. (2013), Financial Accounting Theory/Craig Deegan, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill Education, North Ryde, NSW.
Elsayih, J., Tang, Q. and Lan, Y.C. (2018), “Corporate governance and carbon transparency: Australian experience”, Accounting Research Journal, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 405-422, doi: 10.1108/arj-12-2015-0153.
Eng, L.L. and Mak, Y.T. (2003), “Corporate governance and voluntary disclosure”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 325-345, doi: 10.1016/s0278-4254(03)00037-1.
Ezhilarasi, G. and Kabra, K.C. (2017), “The impact of corporate governance attributes on environmental disclosures: evidence from India”, Indian Journal of Corporate Governance, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 24-43, doi: 10.1177/0974686217701464.
Faisal, F., Andiningtyas, E.D., Achmad, T., Haryanto, H. and Meiranto, W. (2018), “The content and determinants of greenhouse gas emission disclosure: evidence from Indonesian companies”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1397-1406, doi: 10.1002/csr.1660.
Field, A. (2009), Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 3rd ed., Sage publishers, London.
Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Gerged, A.M. (2021), “Factors affecting corporate environmental disclosure in emerging markets: the role of corporate governance structures”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 609-629, doi: 10.1002/bse.2642.
Ghazali, N.A.M. (2007), “Ownership structure and corporate social responsibility disclosure: some Malaysian evidence”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 251-266, doi: 10.1108/14720700710756535.
Giannarakis, G., Zafeiriou, E., Arabatzis, G. and Partalidou, X. (2018), “Determinants of corporate climate change disclosure for European firms”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 281-294, doi: 10.1002/csr.1461.
Harmes, A. (2011), “The limits of carbon disclosure: theorizing the business case for investor environmentalism”, Global Environmental Politics, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 98-119, doi: 10.1162/glep_a_00057.
He, P., Shen, H., Zhang, Y. and Ren, J. (2019), “External pressure, corporate governance, and voluntary carbon disclosure: evidence from China”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 10, pp. 1-20, doi: 10.3390/su11102901.
Hermawan, A., Aisyah, I.S., Gunardi, A. and Putri, W.Y. (2018), “Going green: determinants of carbon emission disclosure in manufacturing companies in Indonesia”, International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 55-61.
Horisch, J., Schaltegger, S. and Freeman, R.E. (2020), “Integrating stakeholder theory and sustainability accounting: a conceptual synthesis”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 275, 124097, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124097.
Huang, C.L. and Kung, F.H. (2010), “Drivers of environmental disclosure and stakeholder expectation: evidence from Taiwan”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 96 No. 3, pp. 435-451, doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0476-3.
Jaggi, B., Allini, A., Macchioni, R. and Zagaria, C. (2018), “The factors motivating voluntary disclosure of carbon information: evidence based on Italian listed companies”, Organization and Environment, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 178-202, doi: 10.1177/1086026617705282.
Khatib, S.F.A., Abdullah, D., Hendrawaty, E. and Elamer, A.A. (2021), “A bibliometric analysis of cash holdings literature: current status, development, and agenda for future research”, Management Review Quarterly, Vol. 72 No. 3, pp. 707-744, doi: 10.1007/s11301-021-00213-0.
Kim, E.H. and Lyon, T. (2011), “When does institutional investor activism increase shareholder value?: the carbon disclosure project”, The BE Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-27, doi: 10.2202/1935-1682.2676.
Kim, E., Kim, S. and Lee, J. (2021), “Do foreign investors affect carbon emission disclosure? Evidence from South Korea”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 18 No. 19, pp. 1-14, doi: 10.3390/ijerph181910097.
La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F. and Shleifer, A. (1999), “Corporate ownership around the world”, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 471-517, doi: 10.1111/0022-1082.00115.
Laskar, N. and Gopal Maji, S. (2018), “Disclosure of corporate sustainability performance and firm performance in Asia”, Asian Review of Accounting, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 414-443, doi: 10.1108/ara-02-2017-0029.
Li, Q., Ruan, W., Li, R. and Li, H. (2023), “Do institutional investors' holdings affect corporate environmental information disclosure? Evidence from China”, Environment, Development and Sustainability, Vol. 25 No. 12, pp. 14733-14751, doi: 10.1007/s10668-022-02686-9.
Liesen, A., Hoepner, A.G., Patten, D.M. and Figge, F. (2015), “Does stakeholder pressure influence corporate GHG emissions reporting? Empirical evidence from Europe”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 1047-1074, doi: 10.1108/aaaj-12-2013-1547.
Lipton, M. and Lorsch, J.W. (1992), “A modest proposal for improved corporate governance”, The Business Lawyer, Vol. 48, pp. 59-77.
Mackenzie, C., Rees, B. and Rodionova, T. (2016), “The impact of a socially responsible investment index on climate change management and carbon emissions”, SSRN: 2794613.
Madhani, P.M. (2016), “Ownership concentration, corporate governance and disclosure practices: a study of firms listed in Bombay stock exchange”, The IUP Journal of Corporate Governance, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 7-36.
Manes-Rossi, F., Tiron-Tudor, A., Nicolo, G. and Zanellato, G. (2018), “Ensuring more sustainable reporting in Europe using non-financial disclosure-de facto and de jure evidence”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 1-20, doi: 10.3390/su10041162.
Matolcsy, Z., Shan, Y. and Seethamraju, V. (2012), “The timing of changes in CEO compensation from cash bonus to equity-based compensation: determinants and performance consequences”, Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 78-91, doi: 10.1016/j.jcae.2012.06.002.
Moloi, T. and Marwala, T. (2020), “The legitimacy theory and the legitimacy gap”, Artificial Intelligence in Economics and Finance Theories, pp. 103-113.
Naser, K., Alhussaini, A., Alkwari, D. and Nuseibeh, R. (2006), “Determinants of corporate social disclosure in developing countries: the case of Qatar”, Advances in International Accounting, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 1-23, doi: 10.1016/s0897-3660(06)19001-7.
Pajuelo Moreno, M.L. and Duarte-Atoche, T. (2019), “Relationship between sustainable disclosure and performance-an extension of Ullmann's model”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 16, p. 4411, doi: 10.3390/su11164411.
Panda, B. and Bag, D. (2019), “Does ownership structure affect firm performance in an emerging market? The Case of India”, Asian Journal of Business and Accounting, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 189-227, doi: 10.22452/ajba.vol12no1.7.
Raimo, N., Vitolla, F., Marrone, A. and Rubino, M. (2020), “The role of ownership structure in integrated reporting policies”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 2238-2250, doi: 10.1002/bse.2498.
Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M. and Burritt, R. (2006), “Sustainability accounting and reporting: development, linkages and reflection. An introduction”, Sustainability Accounting and Reporting, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 1-33.
SEBI (2021), “SEBI guidelines on SEBI business sustainability and responsibility report”, Circular no. SEBI/HO/CFD/CMD-2/P/CIR/2021/562, available at: https://www.sebi.gov.in/legal/circulars/may-2021/business-responsibility-and-sustainability-reporting-by-listed-entities_50096.html
Sengupta, P. (2004), “Disclosure timing: determinants of quarterly earnings release dates”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 457-482, doi: 10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2004.10.001.
Shin, J.E., Yoo, S.W. and Lee, G. (2020), “The effects of block-holder dispersion on the informativeness of earnings: evidence from Korea”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 22, p. 9328, doi: 10.3390/su12229328.
Smith, J.A., Morreale, M. and Mariani, M.E. (2008), “Climate change disclosure: moving towards a brave new world”, Capital Markets Law Journal, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 469-485, doi: 10.1093/cmlj/kmn021.
Suchman, M.C. (1995), “Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 571-610, doi: 10.2307/258788.
Xiao, J.Z., Yang, H. and Chow, C.W. (2004), “The determinants and characteristics of voluntary Internet-based disclosures by listed Chinese companies”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 91-225, doi: 10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2004.04.002.
Zamil, I.A., Ramakrishnan, S., Jamal, N.M., Hatif, M.A. and Khatib, S.F.A. (2021), “Drivers of corporate voluntary disclosure: a systematic review”, Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 232-267, doi: 10.1108/jfra-04-2021-0110.
Zarefar, A., Agustia, D. and Soewarno, N. (2023), “The role of foreign board and ownership on the quality of sustainability disclosure: the moderating effect of social reputation”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 900-918, doi: 10.1108/cg-05-2022-0236.