[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
Main Menu
Home::
Journal Information::
About the Journal
Aims& Scopes
Editorial Board ::
Articles archive::
All Issues
Current Issue
Publication Ethics::
For Authors::
Guide for Authors
Submission Form
Peer Review Process::
Reviewers Section
Registration::
Registration Form
Site Facilities::
Site map
Search contents
FAQ
Top 10 contents
Inform to friends
Contact us::
Contact Information
Contact us
::
Search in website

Advanced Search
..
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
..
:: Volume 5, Issue 10 (2-2021) ::
aapc 2021, 5(10): 231-280 Back to browse issues page
The Cognitive Pattern of Selecting the Most Effective Carbon Disclosure Strategy Based on Stakeholder Social Pressures: Rough Collection Analytical
Sahar Amani Babadi1 , Alah karam Salehi 2, Mohammad Khodamoradi3 , Alireza Jorjorzadeh4
1- PhD Student in Accounting, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran(s.amanibabadi@gmail.com)
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Accounting, Masjed Soleiman Branch, Islamic Azad University, Masjed Soleiman, Iran((Corresponding author) , A.K.salehi@iaumis.ac.ir
3- Assistant Professor, Department of Mathematics, Izeh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Izeh, Iran (Mohammad_moradi57@yahoo.com)
4- Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran(Arjorjor@iauahvaz.ac.ir)
Abstract:   (4160 Views)
With the expansion of social interactions and the development of regulatory tools, stakeholders today are seen as an important and important part in strengthening corporate social responsibility practices. Social pressures, in order to increase the level of sustainable functions, affect the environmental performance of companies and cause companies to provide information to persuade social expectations in a competitive environment by relying on behavioral and specialized approaches. One of these approaches is carbon exposure strategies based on the social pressures of stakeholders. In this study, its purpose Provide a cognitive model for selecting the effectiveness carbon exposure strategy based on stakeholder social pressures at the capital market level, Efforts were made to use the participation of two groups of people in the target community at the university level and at the capital market level and based on the nature of research in the qualitative section, From two Meta-synthesis and Delphi and in the quantitative research section, use the Raff's analyzes. The results in the qualitative section, by examining 29 screened studies, confirmed the 15 social pressure propositions of stakeholders as analysis criteria and 3 strategic components of carbon disclosure as Ruff analysis rules. After Delphi analysis to determine the theoretical adequacy, the number of propositions they were reduced to 14 social stress statements and 3 components of carbon exposure strategies were approved. Then, at the level of analysis of Raff collection, which was based on matrix analysis and with the participation of managers in different layers of capital market companies, the results showed that out of 14 propositions, three propositions tend to be socially accepted M5; The tendency to change the social norms of the M8 and the disclosure of the normative information of the M2 becomes the most important statement in the social pressure for the use of carbon disclosure strategies by companies. It was also found that the strategy of voluntary disclosure of carbon, based on the social pressures of stakeholders, is the most important strategy in disclosing carbon functions by companies that can help develop interactions in a competitive market.
Keywords: Carbon Disclosure Strategy, Social Pressures Stakeholders, Rough Analyzing
Full-Text [PDF 631 kb]   (507 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2020/06/20 | Accepted: 2020/08/30 | Published: 2021/03/24
References
1. Agyei, S. K., and B. Yankey. 2019. Environmental reporting practices and performance of timber firms in Ghana: Perceptions of practitioners, Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 9(2): 268-286. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-12-2017-0127
2. Attride-Stirling, J. 2001. Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research, Commission for Health Improvement, https://doi.org/10.1177/146879410100100307
3. Awaysheh, A., and R. D. Klassen, 2010. The impact of supply chain structure on the use of supplier socially responsible practices. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 30, 1246–1268. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443571011094253
4. Battiston, P., and S. Gamba. 2016. The impact of social pressure on tax compliance: A field experiment, International Review of Law and Economics, 46(5): 78-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2016.03.001
5. Besharov, M, L., and W. K. Smith. 2014. Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39, 364–381. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0431
6. Brink, A, G., F. Tang, and L. Yang. 2016. The Impact of Estimate Source and Social Pressure on Auditors' Fair Value Estimate Choices. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 2(28): 29-40.
7. Chiou, Ch, L., and P. G. Shu. 2019. How does foreign pressure affect a firm's corporate social performance? Evidence from listed firms in Taiwan, Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 51(2): 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mulfin.2019.04.006
8. De Villiers, C., and D. Alexander. 2014. The institutionalisation of corporate social responsibility reporting. The British Accounting Review, 46(2): 198–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2014.03.001
9. DiMaggio, P. J., and W. W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(1): 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
10. Earnhart, D., and J. M. Leonard. 2014. Environmental Audits and Signaling: The Role of Firm Organizational Structure, Resource and Energy Economics, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2016.01.002
11. Friedland, R., and R. R. Alford. 1991. Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In The new institutionalism in organizantial analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12. Fu, L., D. Boehe, M. Orlitxky, and D. L. Swanson. 2018. Managing stakeholder pressures: Toward a typology of corporate social performance profiles, Long Range Planning, 52(6): 101-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.08.002
13. Graafland, J., and H. Smid. 2017. Reconsidering the relevance of social license pressure and government regulation for environmental performance of European SMEs, Journal of Cleaner Production, 141(10): 967-977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.171
14. Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., and Slowinski, R. (2001). Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis, European Journal of Operational Research, 129(1): 1-47
15. Hahn, R., D. Reimsbach, and F. Schiemann. 2015. Organizations, climate change, and transparency: Reviewing the literature on carbon disclosure, Organization and Environment, 28(3): 80–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615575542
16. Hassan, A. and X. Guo. 2017. The relationships between reporting format, environmental disclosure and environmental performance: An empirical study, Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 18(4): 425-444. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-06-2015-0056
17. Herold, D. M. 2019. Has carbon disclosure become more transparent in the global logistics industry? An investigation of corporate carbon disclosure strategies between 2010 and 2015. Logistics, 2, 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics2030013
18. Hill, C. W., T. M. Jones. 1992. Stakeholder agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29(3): 131–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14676486.1992.tb00657.x
19. Iredele, O, O. 2020. Measuring performance in corporate environmental reporting in Nigeria, Measuring Business Excellence, 24(2): 183-195. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBE-05-2019-0040
20. Kolk, A., D. Levy, and J. Pinkse. 2008. Corporate responses in an emerging climate regime: The institutionalization and commensuration of carbon disclosure. The European Accounting Review, 17(2): 719–745. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180802489121
21. Kraatz, M. S., and Block, E. S. 2008. Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), The sage handbook of organizational institutionalism. London: Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200387.n10
22. Lee, K, H., and D. M. Herold. 2016. Cultural relevance in corporate sustainability management: A comparison between Korea and Japan. Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility, 1(4): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41180‐016‐0003‐2
23. Lemma, T. T., Azmi Shabestari, M., Freedman, M., Lulseged, A., Mlilo, M. 2020. Corporate carbon risk, voluntary disclosure and debt maturity, International Journal of Accounting & Information Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJAIM-06-2019-0064
24. Linnenluecke, M. K., and Griffiths, A. 2010. Corporate sustainability and organizational culture. Journal of World Business, 45(3): 357–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2009.08.006
25. Liu, G., X. Yin, W. Pengue, and E. Benetto. 2018. Donald Huisingh, Hans Schnitzer, Yutao Wang, Marco Casazza, Environmental accounting: in between raw data and information use for management practices, Journal of Cleaner Production, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.194
26. Luo, X. R., D. Wang, and J. Zhang. 2017. Whose call to answer: Institutional complexity and firms' CSR reporting. Academy of Management Journal, 60(3): 321–344. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0847
27. Mata, C., A. Fialho, and T. Eugénio. 2018. A Decade of Environmental Accounting Reporting: What we know? Journal of Cleaner Production, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.087
28. Merton, R. K. (1968). Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The Free Press.
29. Meyer, J. W., and B. Rowan. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(10): 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550
30. Mitchell, R. K., B. R. Agle, and D. J. Wood. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4): 853–886. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9711022105
31. Moratis, L., and M, V. Egmond. 2018. Concealing social responsibility? Investigating the relationship between CSR, earnings management and the effect of industry through quantitative analysis, International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 3(8): 33-58. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-018-0030-7
32. Name-Correa, A., and H. Yildirim. 2019. Social pressure, transparency, and voting in committees, Journal of Economic Theory, 184(4):104-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2019.104943
33. Pawlak, Z. 2005. Rough sets and flow graphs, Rough Sets, Fuzzy Sets, Data Mining and Granular Computing, 36(41): 1-11.
34. Radhouane, I., M. Nekhili, H. Nagati, and G. Paché. 2020. Is voluntary external assurance relevant for the valuation of environmental reporting by firms in environmentally sensitive industries? Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 11(1): 65-98. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-06-2018-0158
35. Reid, E. M., and M, W. Toffel. 2009. Responding to public and private politics: Corporate disclosure of climate change strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 30(3): 1157–1178. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.796
36. Saka, C., and T. Oshika. 2014. Disclosure effects, carbon emissions and corporate value, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 5(1): 22-45. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-09-2012-0030
37. Schaltegger, S., and J. Hörisch. 2015. In search of the dominant rationale in sustainability management: Legitimacy or profit seeking? Journal of Business Ethics, 145(2): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1055101528543.
38. Schaltegger, S., and M. Csutora. 2012. Carbon accounting for sustainability and management. Status Quo and Challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production, 36: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.06.024
39. Scott, W. R. 2012. Embedding the examination of multilevel factors in an organization field context. JNCI Monographs, 20(1): 32–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/jncimonographs/lgs007
40. Scott, W., M, Ruef, P, Mendel, and C. Caronna. 2000. Institutional change and healthcare organizations: From professional dominance to managed care. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
41. Shyng J, Y., G. H. Tzeng. and F. K. Wang. 2007. Rough set theory in analyzing the attributes of combination values for insurance market, Expert System with Applications, 32(1): 56-64.
42. Stead, J. G., W. E. Stead. 2013. Sustainable strategic management. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
43. Theriault, J, E., L. Young, and L. Feldman Barrett. 2020. The sense of should: A biologically-based framework for modeling social pressure, Physics of Life Reviews, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2020.01.004
44. Thornton, P. H., W. Ocasio, and M. Lounsbury. 2012. The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford: Oxford University press.
45. Wang, P., Yuan, L., and J. Wu. 2017. The joint effects of social identity and institutional pressures on audit quality: The case of the Chinese Audit Industry, International Business Review, 26(4): 666-682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.12.007
46. Zhang, Q., Q. Xie, and G. Wang. 2016. A survey on rough set theory and its applications, CAAI Transactions on Intelligence Technology, 1(4): 323-333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trit.2016.11.001
Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA

XML   Persian Abstract   Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Amani Babadi S, Salehi A K, Khodamoradi M, Jorjorzadeh A. The Cognitive Pattern of Selecting the Most Effective Carbon Disclosure Strategy Based on Stakeholder Social Pressures: Rough Collection Analytical. aapc 2021; 5 (10) :231-280
URL: http://aapc.khu.ac.ir/article-1-846-en.html
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 5, Issue 10 (2-2021) Back to browse issues page
دوفصلنامه علمی حسابداری ارزشی و رفتاری journal of Value & Behavioral Accounting
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.1 seconds with 37 queries by YEKTAWEB 4645