DATA ANALYSIS
ALONE ANNUAL
REPORT MP STAND ALONE AND ANNUAL REPORT DP STAND ALONE AND ANNUAL REPORT TABLE RQ1 Mann-Whitney test
Difference on volume of disclosure on GCC issues per groups of reports considering all observations (n=528)
N DPH _ _ 4.20
Difference on volume of disclosure on GCC issues per groups of reports considering only reports that disclose on GCC (n=353)
MPH DPH _ _ 4.20
Sign test (paired comparison)
Difference on volume of disclosure on GCC issues per groups of reports before and after the UK ETS started considering all observations (n=528)
_ _ S After UK ETS S After UK ETS 4.21 4.22 Difference on volume of GCC disclosure per groups of reports before and after
the UK ETS started considering only reports that disclose on GCC (n=353)
_ _ S
After UK ETS
N 4.21
4.22
Mann-Whitney test (non-paired comparison)
Difference on volume of disclosure on GCC issues per groups of reports before and after the UK ETS started considering all observations (n=528)
_ _ S
After UK ETS
N 4.23
Difference on volume of GCC disclosure per groups of reports before and after the UK ETS started considering only reports that disclose on GCC (n=353)
_ _ N N 4.23
RQ2
Cochran’s and McNerma test
Number of reports that disclose emissions _ _ N N 4.26 until 4.31
Number of reports that disclose targets _ _ N N 4.26 until 4.31
Number of reports that disclose actions _ _ HP HP 4.26 until 4.31
Number of reports that disclose other/narrative _ _ LP N 4.26 until 4.31
N: The difference is not statistically significant. S: The difference is statistically significant.
DPH: Highest volume of disclosure on GCC produced by direct participants compared with match pairs. MPH: Highest volume of disclosure on GCC produced by match pairs compared with direct participants. HP: Highest proportion of reports presented disclosure on this disclosure category.
4.5 Concluding comments
This section focused on describing the results of the statistical analysis. Categorical and volume of disclosure analysis were both carried in order to answer two research questions. The first research questions explore what DP and MP disclose in AR and SA on GCC and how these disclosures changed over time. The second question explores how DP and MP disclosure compares with each other. All these questions were answer together, since they explore complementary characteristics of disclosure practices. An additional analysis of these questions will be undertaken in chapter 5 using the lens of institutional theory.
Content analysis has been used to explore several issues on Corporate Social Disclosure (CSD). However, few studies have been conducted on GCC (but see for example, Kolk and Pinkse, 2004; Freedman and Jaggi, 2005) and there is also little emphasis on the differences in the disclosures made in SA and AR (but see for example, Coulson, 2008). This study includes both elements and it also sheds light on the possible influence the UK ETS on the nature and volume of CSD on GCC.
Arranging from the summaries contained in tables 4.17 and 4.32, DP disclosed more on GCC issues compared with MP in the AR. This result was found statistically significant not only in terms of numbers of reports but also in terms of volume of disclosure. Thus, it is possible to suggest that that DP may use more the disclosure on GCC, compared to MP, to construct their financial image (Grayet al., 1995b).
With regard to disclosures produced before and after the UK ETS started, there was no significant difference between the numbers of reports produced by DP and MP over these two different periods. However, statistic tests carried out on volume of disclosure indicated that MP produced a higher volume of disclosure after the UK ETS started. There was also significant difference on the volume of disclosure produced by DP before and after the UK ETS started, if considered all observations (n=528) and paired comparison.
The fact that DP disclosure volume did not increased for DP, if considering only reports that disclosed on GCC, does not mean that this scheme has not influenced on the nature
of disclosure. In fact, differences between DP and MP disclosure exist and could be answered to relate to the quality of disclosure rather than quantity of disclosure. As an illustration, the results of paired comparison indicate that the highest proportion of reports produced by DP contained disclosure on actions. However, there was no significant difference between proportions of reports that present disclosure on emissions, targets and other/narrative (tables 4.26 until 4.31), which suggests that similar proportions of DP reports mentioned most of disclosure categories. MP appeared to focus their disclosure on actions, giving less importance to other categories, especially targets (tables 4.26 and 4.31). Reports that cover most of these disclosure categories could give better level of understanding on how organizations are dealing with GHG emissions and what are their concerns on GCC.
Differences on GCC disclosure made by categories were also identified when the analysis was taken by report type. Two-way contingency tables applied for different types of reports indicated that DP presented more disclosure on narrative and targets compared with MP in SA (table 4.13). Two-way contingency tables also indicated that DP presented more reports that disclosed on targets and actions compared with MP at AR (table 4.13).
Large proportion DP disclosed on global political order (UN via Kyoto Protocol and EU), incentives and awards. These results could confirm what Nye and Owens (2008) called as ‘symbolic politics’. Nye and Owens (2008) suggested that organizations primarily motivation in supporting economic instruments, such as emission trading, is to achieve economic efficiency. However, the economic rationale for doing so is diminished or constrained by existing policy frameworks or wider socio-economic contexts.
Some similarities were also found on the disclosure produced by DP and MP when frequency analysis was used to study the disclosure rationale and organizations’ actions to tackle GCC. As an illustration, the predominant narrative stressed by both, DP and MP, was GCC responsiveness will be good for business (table 4.14). In addition, DP and MP stressed much energy use and energy/fuel efficiency as actions taken to tackle its effect on GCC (table 4.15). The highest level of disclosure on those actions could be
partially explained by the strong importance that the UK Government have been given on issues related to energy consumption improvement (Marshall, 1998).
These results suggest that instruments of environmental policy may influence CSD on GCC issues. In particular, being a DP in the UK ETS is associated with increased GCC disclosure and especially with disclosure in a media (the AR) where the norms of efficiency and mainstream business rationale are accepted. Thus, despite the fact that AR and SA reports both contain CSD, in this study they contain different patterns of disclosure and therefore may constitute different (rather than complementary) disclosure media. In addition, the use of AR and SA for disclosure may represent response to diverse sources of demands (such as participation at the UK ETS) and those demands may vary depending on organizational context.