Martin Freedman

Evidence on the pernicious effect of financial report environmental disclosure

Abstract Unlike previous US environmental regulations, the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), passed into law in 1986, focused on using information as a tool for reducing pollution. As noted by Konar and Cohen [Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32 (1997) 109], if investors cared enough about the pollution performance information required under the enactment to punish bad performers, firms would have a market-based incentive to reduce toxic emissions. However, legitimacy theorists suggest that corporations may use largely voluntary financial report environmental disclosures to offset or mitigate the negative aspects of other information or actions. Accordingly, these disclosures could reduce the market effect of the TRI program. This study examines the market reaction to the unexpected proposal by President George Bush in June of 1989 for revisions in the Clean Air Act to identify whether TRI information and 10-K report environmental disclosures had an impact. Based on a sample of 112 firms, we find that companies with worse pollution performance (higher levels of size-adjusted toxic releases into the air) suffered more negative market reactions than companies with better performance. However, companies with less extensive environmental disclosures in their 10-K reports suffered more negative market reactions than companies with more extensive disclosure. These results suggest that, while the TRI information may be inducing market effects that could in turn work as a quasi-regulatory device, financial report environmental disclosure reduces its impact. If concern about the environment is important, therefore, it appears that environmental disclosure under a largely voluntary regime is inadequate.

Corporate disclosure of environmental capital expenditures: A test of alternative theories

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine three potential explanations for the corporate choice to disclose environmental capital spending amounts. Design/methodology/approach - Using archival data from a sample of Findings - First, the authors find that, for the overwhelming majority of observations, the disclosed amounts are not quantitatively material. This suggests that non-disclosure is likely due to immateriality. Next, their findings show that disclosing firms do not exhibit improved subsequent environmental performance relative to non-disclosing companies. Further, controlling for firm size and industry class, they find the choice to disclose is associated with worse environmental performance. Research limitations/implications - The sample includes only relatively larger firms from certain industries and this limits the generalizability of the findings. Smaller firms and those from excluded industries may have other reasons to choose to disclose environmental information. Further, the authors rely on TRI data to assess pollution performance, but TRI is self-reported and its reliability is only as good as the inputs. Finally, although environmental capital spending is potentially relevant information, this investigation does not examine other types of environmental information disclosure. Practical implications - This paper provides corroborating evidence that companies use the disclosure of environmental capital spending as a strategic tool to address their exposures to political and regulatory concerns. Hence, interpreting disclosed environmental information would appear to require careful understanding of the underlying motivations. Originality/value - This paper extends the environmental accounting and reporting literature by contributing to the unresolved question of what drives differences in the corporate disclosure of environmental information. The authors add to this body of research by investigating the disclosure of one specific piece of environmental information, the amount of capital expenditures incurred for pollution abatement and control.

Environmental disclosure by companies involved in initial public offerings

This paper is concerned with financial statement disclosure of environmental liabilities by companies that are coming to the US securities market for the first time in an initial public offering (IPO). This specific disclosure type has not been previously reported on in the accounting literature. Compares 26 IPO firms identified as potentially responsible parties (PRPs) in Superfund sites with a closely matched (on the attributes of industry classification and asset size) group of publicly held PRPs. The objective is to observe whether there is a differentially higher level of environmental disclosure by the IPO group during the year of heightened securities market scrutiny as the IPO occurs. Data are collected through content analysis of annual reports and SEC Form 10‐Ks. The results from this study show that no different level of environmental disclosure was identified in the matched‐pair sample. The more intense inspection, the higher stakes in an IPO situation and the enhanced due diligence procedures are of no apparent consequence in simulating a greater amount or quality of environmental disclosure. Strict disclosure mandates and expected public scrutiny do not appear to ensure the anticipated level of accounting statement disclosure concerning environmental liabilities.

Global Warming Disclosures: Impact of Kyoto Protocol Across Countries

The Kyoto Protocol that went into effect in February 2005 set limits on the amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. We document in this study that firms from countries ratifying the Protocol and setting limits on GHG emissions (i.e., European Union [EU] countries, Canada and Japan) are associated with higher GHG disclosures compared with firms in the United States, which has not ratified the Protocol. Additionally, we document that firms from India, which has not set any limits on GHG emissions, make even less GHG disclosures than firms from all other countries covered in this study. Our findings also show that GHG disclosures are greater for Canadian and Japanese firms compared with firms from the EU countries and that they also differ somewhat across EU firms. These findings suggest that ratification of the Protocol and limits on emissions improve pollution disclosures. In the absence of Protocol ratification, mandatory disclosure requirements may be needed to ensure adequate and reliable pollution disclosures.

Some New Evidence on the Effectiveness of Authoritative Environmental Reporting Guidance

This research investigates whether authoritative guidance regarding financial statement disclosures is incorporated into practice as envisioned by the promulgating body. Such assimilation is important from the standpoint of corporate accountability reporting as well as development of greater transparency in the extant accounting model. Specifically, we empirically test whether American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Statement of Position 96-1 led to improved reporting of environmental remediation costs and liabilities. A repeated-measures design was used to assess the level of disclosure by 126 large U.S. firms, each of which had been identified by the Environmental Protection Agency as being potentially responsible for the cost of cleanup efforts at multiple Superfund sites. By performing a content analysis of the pre- and post-issuance annual reports of these companies, a disclosure score was derived for each. Comparison of disclosures in the two fiscal periods following the effective date of this new guidance with the pre-issuance reporting shows no overall enhancement or improvement in either the level or quality of disclosures. We conclude that when viewed from the perspective of the two years subsequent to its effective date the promulgation of this additional authoritative reporting and display guidance did not attain the espoused objective.

Greenhouse gas disclosures: evidence from the EU response to Kyoto

In 2005, the European Union instituted the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol by implementing a carbon allocation scheme (cap and trade) to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Prior to 2005, the Scandinavian countries had imposed a carbon tax to reduce carbon emissions. In this study, the EU experience with cap and trade and carbon taxes is compared concluding that neither endeavour was particularly successful in reducing GHG emissions. Disclosures made by firms that were impacted by the GHG emission reduction schemes are then examined. After controlling for size and industry group, firms from the UK and firms that just participated in cap and trade made significantly greater disclosures.

Mandated Climate Change Disclosures: A Study of Large US Firms That Emit Carbon Dioxide

Abstract In February 2010, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued an interpretive release clarifying the information that registrants should disclose about climate change in their annual filings. Based on the industries the European Union targeted for its cap-and-trade carbon trading mechanism, this study investigates climate change disclosures for Fortune 500 firms operating in these same sectors. Using an equal-weighting scheme for content analysis of Form 10-Ks from 136 firms, we completed a comparative analysis on the extensiveness of climate change disclosures for the pre- and post-periods surrounding the SEC pronouncement. We observed a statistically significant increase in the disclosure of information related to climate change in 2010 compared to 2008, but no similar effect when comparing 2010–2009 reporting. There was a significant disclosure increase in 2009 compared to 2008. We conclude – based on a hypothesized anticipation of the SEC actually mandating climate change information in filings – that firms augmented their disclosures during 2009 in advance of the official guidance being published. This is a rather significant outcome given the historical lack of environmental disclosure subsequent to previous SEC mandates.

Accountability and emissions allowance trading: Lessons learned from the U.S. electric utility industry

Abstract This research concerns accountability by companies in the U.S. electric utility industry for the financial impacts of cap‐and‐trade emissions allowance activity. We report findings from an extensive examination of disclosure practices for more than 100 facilities that were required to curb pollutant discharges and participate in a government‐mandated emission permits distribution and trading program. We can report conclusions from this empirical analysis in two domains of interest. With respect to the actual focus of the cap‐and‐trade program, this study shows that sulfur dioxide emissions have been reduced (whether the replaced command‐and‐control system would have been as effective in this connection is not possible to determine) and that firms have been able to delay implementation of costly pollution‐control technology by acquiring allowances. As regards the financial accounting and reporting for this activity, it is not known what the real cost to the firms was for using allowances since little disclosure regarding these costs has been made available publicly. It appears that there is little or no accountability concerning a key element of the cap‐and‐trade program.

Measuring Environmental Performance: Is Newsweek’s Green Ranking the Solution?

Abstract In 2009, Newsweek published a report in which they ranked the 500 largest US companies and the 100 largest global companies based on its environmental performance measures (http://greenrankings2009.newsweek.com/). This ranking is referred to as Newsweek’s Green Ranking. Included in this ranking is information about water and air pollution, solid waste disposal, toxic wastes, carbon emissions, and enforcement actions. The question we are addressing in this study is how well it measures pollution performance? The question is relevant to environmental accounting/reporting since it is part of a dilemma yet to be answered: Aggregated environmental indices/scores are easy for average information users to percept, while specific information may not be preserved when it is aggregated into the overall score(s). Specifically, we examine whether Newsweek’s Green Ranking is correlated with pollution measures based on Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) in order to determine how valid or reliable Newsweek’s Green Ranking is – in other words, how much Newsweek’s Green Ranking can explain the pollution by the toxic releases. We find that there is no significant correlation between Newsweek’s Green Ranking and the TRI measures except for the firms in the utilities industry. Concluding that on one measure, which we consider a very important one, there is no justification for the overall Green Ranking Score presented by Newsweek. However, in Newsweek’s three-part score the element that is termed the Environmental Impact Score captures pollution performance measured based on TRI. The contrast between the overall ranking and performance ranking indicates that a composite index that incorporates hard performance and soft measures can dilute the information carried by performance data.

SEC’s 2010 Release on Climate Change: Shifting from Voluntary to Mandatory Climate Change Disclosure

ABSTRACT Although the United States Congress has not federally mandated climate change policies, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has instituted climate change disclosure policies. As part of this policy it requires that firms making certain voluntary climate change disclosures also provide them in their mandatory annual filings with the SEC. Using a sample of companies that participate in Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and are therefore major generators of carbon emissions we found that for these firms a small portion of them still provide voluntary climate change disclosures that are not included in their mandatory SEC annual filings. These disclosures are mainly concerned with their environmental reputation or with capital expenditures for climate change. Furthermore, we find that voluntary climate change disclosures after the February 2010 SEC release date significantly decreased whereas mandatory disclosure significantly increased, suggesting that the SEC release had a dampening effect on voluntary disclosures.