Corporate carbon performance data
Quo vadis
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19467993 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Timo Busch (0000-0001-6405-5252, School of Business, Economics, and Social Science University of Hamburg Hamburg Germany, corresponding author), Matthew Johnson (0000-0002-7295-2663, School of Business, Economics, and Social Science University of Hamburg Hamburg Germany), Thomas Pioch (0000-0003-1019-6759, School of Business, Economics, and Social Science University of Hamburg Hamburg Germany) |
| Year | 2022 |
| Volume | 26 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 350-363 |
| Publication date | 2022-02-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Industrial Ecology (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1088-1980 • E-ISSN: 1530-9290 |
| Publisher | Springer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1111/jiec.13008 |
| OpenAlex | W3020696846 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 29 |
| References cited | 41 |
Corporate carbon performance (CCP) has become a central topic in political, financial, and academic domains. At the same time, several characteristics of CCP data, including comparability and consistency, remain unresolved. The literature has extensively covered issues regarding the comparability of CCP data from a firm‐internal perspective. However, it has not yet examined the consistency of CCP data between third‐party data providers. This article investigates the degree of CCP data consistency between third‐party providers according to three dimensions: scope (i.e., direct and indirect emissions), scheme (i.e., mandatory and voluntary reporting schemes), and source (i.e., data stemming from corporate reports and from third‐party estimation methods). The results reveal that data on direct emissions are more consistent than data on indirect emissions, and they are especially inconsistent for Scope 3. Second, mandatory and voluntary reporting schemes do not substantially improve the consistency of CCP data, which is surprising. Third, third‐party estimations are less consistent as compared to data stemming directly from corporate reports; however, the combination of Scopes 1 and 2 third‐party estimated data raises consistency levels. On the basis of these results, we conclude the following key implications: academic researchers must be mindful of the consistency of CCP data, because it can significantly affect empirical results, corporate management should avoid situations where different CCP data are communicated externally, investors should engage firms to follow a standardized approach, data providers should increase the transparency about their estimation methods, and policy makers need to be aware of the importance of a sound and standardized methodology to determine CCP
Business · Comparability · Computer security · Economics · Status quo · Computer Science · Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting · Environmental Sustainability in Business · Sustainable Supply Chain Management · Accounting
Are SRI funds financing carbon emissions? An input-output life cycle assessment of investment funds
From the Paris Agreement to corporate climate commitments
Firm complexity and carbon emissions
Network-based allocation of responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions
What Do We Know About Scope 3 Emissions in Small‐ and Medium‐Sized Enterprises? Mapping Current Knowledge and Advancing a Theory–Practice‐Oriented Framework
Green Ambiguity Shapes Sustainable Investing
Corporate Decarbonization
Environment and ESG Performance
Corporate low carbon governance
Emissions estimations should embed a precautionary principle
Renewable energy certificates threaten the integrity of corporate science-based targets
Temporal (In)consistency in Sustainability Disclosure
Corporate Greenhouse Gas Emissions’ Data and the Urgent Need for a Science-Led Just Transition
Assessing economic–environmental decoupling in the EU using sectoral Kaya decomposition
Expanding the politics of measurement in sustainable finance
That's none of my business
Under Pressure? The Link Between Mandatory Climate Reporting and Firms’ Carbon Performance
Does managerial climate attention matter? Evidence on corporate default risk from China
Estimating scope 3 emissions in the global investment network
Estimating scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions through the shareholder network of publicly traded firms
Data innovation in industrial ecology
Carbon intensity disclosure and corporate credit spreads
Carbon disclosures and information asymmetry
Completing the SME carbon profile
Toward efficient mitigation solutions
Synergies between corporate social responsibility precedence and sustainable development goals
Carbon performance and corporate financial performance during crises
Using cumulative carbon budgets and corporate carbon disclosure to inform ambitious corporate emissions targets and long‐term mitigation pathways
Short- and long-term effects of environmental factors on credit risk
Responding to public and private politics
Organizations, Climate Change, and Transparency
Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction From Rigid Thermal Insulation Use in Buildings
Estimating Corporate Carbon Footprints with Externally Available Data
Data for the Carbon Footprinting of Rendering Operations
Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Utility‐Scale Wind Power
Accounting for Carbon Dioxide Emissions
Toward a Carbon Dioxide Neutral Industrial Park
Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Trough and Tower Concentrating Solar Power Electricity Generation
A review of recent multi-region input–output models used for consumption-based emission and resource accounting
| Unique citing works | 29 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 5.8 |
| Citation span | 2021 - 2026 (6) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 28 |