Set & Done? Trade-offs between Stakeholder Expectation and Attainment Pressures in Corporate Carbon Target Management

被引:1
作者
Callery, Patrick J. [1 ]
Kim, Eun-Hee [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Vermont, Burlington, VT USA
[2] Fordham Univ, New York, NY USA
关键词
carbon targets; decoupling; environmental strategy; institutional ownership; non-market strategy; quantitative measures; sustainability; EXECUTIVE-COMPENSATION; IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT; SOCIAL PERFORMANCE; GO GREEN; ACTIVISM; FIRMS; GOVERNANCE; MODELS; COST; COMMITMENT;
D O I
10.1111/joms.13140
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Investors increasingly pressure firms for action on climate change and carbon emissions, in particular, by setting carbon targets. Whereas investors largely rely on quantitative information in evaluating this important aspect of non-financial performance, scarce research has explored how firms may exploit the numerical magnitudes of carbon targets. We examine this possibility by analysing deceptive parameter changes in carbon targets after initial adoption, wherein firms create the perception of strengthening carbon targets while in reality loosening them, a novel form of decoupling. We theorize a U-shaped relationship between the most conspicuous target parameter, target size (percentage emissions reduction), and the propensity for deceptive target change based on countervailing pressures - stakeholder expectation management and target attainment - that create tension. We further propose greater investor pressure over policy, through long-term ownership and shareholder voice, exacerbates these pressures whereas media controversy that may prompt investor scrutiny over practice deters deceptive target changes. We find empirical support for our hypotheses and provide additional analyses that support our theorized latent, countervailing pressures and our characterization of deceptive change as decoupling.
引用
收藏
页数:35
相关论文
共 127 条
  • [1] Allison P., 2009, Fixed Effects Regression Models, DOI [10.4135/9781412993869, DOI 10.4135/9781412993869]
  • [2] Does It Pay to Be Green? A Systematic Overview
    Ambec, Stefan
    Lanoie, Paul
    [J]. ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVES, 2008, 23 (04) : 45 - 62
  • [3] Why and How Investors Use ESG Information: Evidence from a Global Survey
    Amel-Zadeh, Amir
    Serafeim, George
    [J]. FINANCIAL ANALYSTS JOURNAL, 2018, 74 (03) : 87 - 103
  • [4] ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING IN TARGET SETTING
    Aranda, Carmen
    Arellano, Javier
    Davila, Antonio
    [J]. ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, 2017, 60 (03) : 1189 - 1211
  • [5] Climate Change Concerns and the Performance of Green vs. Brown Stocks
    Ardia, David
    Bluteau, Keven
    Boudt, Kris
    Inghelbrecht, Koen
    [J]. MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2023, 69 (12) : 7607 - 7632
  • [6] Beyond Numbers: How Investment Managers Accommodate Societal Issues in Financial Decisions
    Arjalies, Diane-Laure
    Bansal, Pratima
    [J]. ORGANIZATION STUDIES, 2018, 39 (5-6) : 689 - 719
  • [7] Target difficulty, target flexibility, and firm performance: Evidence from business units' targets
    Arnold, Markus C.
    Artz, Martin
    [J]. ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS AND SOCIETY, 2015, 40 : 61 - 77
  • [8] The Big Three and corporate carbon emissions around the world
    Azar, Jose
    Duro, Miguel
    Kadach, Igor
    Ormazabal, Gaizka
    [J]. JOURNAL OF FINANCIAL ECONOMICS, 2021, 142 (02) : 674 - 696
  • [9] Bansal P, 2004, ACAD MANAGE J, V47, P93, DOI [10.2307/20159562, 10.5465/20159562]
  • [10] Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness
    Bansal, P
    Roth, K
    [J]. ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, 2000, 43 (04) : 717 - 736