NO X Nitrogen Oxide
BACKGROUND
I1. Use of new technologies New technologies to tackle GCC. GRI (2002) I2. Redesigning
products/process/services
Redesigning products/process/ services to tackle GHG emissions.
GRI (2002); DEFRA (2006a)
I3. GHG certifications e.g.: ISO 14064 and ISO 14065 WBCSD and WRI (2004) I4. Waste disposal Monitoring of waste during the
production process or at the end of the product life cycle.
CDP (2007);
DEFRA(2001b; 2006a); UN (2004)
I5. Energy conservation Reductions on energy consumption. CDP (2007); GRI,(2006); DEFRA(2001b; 2006a); UN (2004)
I6. Energy: Use of renewable energy
Use of energy from renewable sources such as wind and solar.
DEFRA(2006a); UN (2004) I7. Energy and fuel efficiency Energy and fuel efficiency in order to
tackle GHG emissions.
GRI (2002); UN (2004) I8. Refrigeration and air-
conditioning improvements
Improvements to reduce GHG emissions.
DEFRA (2001b)
I9. Transport use: Travel reductions
Reduction of travels made for
instance by managers and employees.
DEFRA (2001b)
I10. Transport use: Logistic improvements
Improvements to reduce GHG emissions.
DEFRA (2001b)
I11. Use of alternative types of transport
Examples of alternative types of transports are hybrid or electric cars.
SA
I12. Management programme and strategies to reduce global warming
Implementation of internal strategies or management programmes to tackle GHG emissions.
CDP (2007); DEFRA (2001b)
I13. Performance against internal and external benchmarking
Examples of possible benchmarking could be regard to emissions levels and actions to tackle GHG emissions.
WBCSD and WRI (2004)
I9. Transport use: Travel reductions
Reduction of travels made for
instance by managers and employees.
DEFRA (2001b)
I10. Transport use: Logistic improvements
Improvements to reduce GHG emissions.
DEFRA (2001b)
I11. Use of alternative types of transport
Examples of alternative types of transports are hybrid or electric cars.
SA
I12. Management programme and strategies to reduce global warming
Implementation of internal strategies or management programmes to tackle GHG emissions.
CDP (2007); DEFRA (2001b)
I13. Performance against internal and external benchmarking
Examples of possible benchmarking could be regard to emissions levels and actions to tackle GHG emissions.
WBCSD and WRI (2004)
I14. Board level responsibility Specific area and/or personal responsible for GCC issues.
CDP (2007);
Table 3.6continuation
ACTIONS DESCRIPTION LITERATURE
BACKGROUND
I15. Employees incentives to activities related to global warming
Example of employees incentives is award actions to reduce GCC.
CDP (2007)
I16. Employee training Training employees on GCC issues. SA of DP in the UK ETS I17. Supply chain involvement Involvement of supply chain on the
process to tackle GHG emissions.
CDP (2007); DEFRA (2006a) I18. Consumer training Consumer training on GCC issues. SA 119. Research sponsorship Financing researches on GCC issues. SA I20. Partnerships with external
organizations
Partnerships to tackle GHG emissions.
SA
I21. Carbon sequestration Reservoir to remove carbon emissions removing from the atmosphere.
PCA (2002); WBCSD and WRI (2004) I22. Carbon offset Purchase of carbon credits to
compensate emissions.
PCA (2002); WBCSD and WRI (2004) I23. EU emission trading Influence of EU ETS on organization. PCA (2002);
WBCSD and WRI (2004) I24. UK emissions trading Influence of UK ETS on organization. PCA (2002);
WBCSD and WRI (2004) I25. Chicago climate exchange Influence of Chicago climate
exchange on organization.
PCA (2002); WBCSD and WRI (2004) I26. Internal emissions trading Implementation of internal emissions
trading by the organization.
PCA (2002)
3.5 Reliability
Krippendorff (1980) describes the two most important requirements of content analysis as being reliability and validity. Reliability is based on the concepts of stability, reproducibility and accuracy of a research instrument. In other words, the results of content classification should be stable over the time (stability) and the results should not change if coded by more than one coder (reproducibility). In addition, the classification adopted during the analysis process should be considered as standard or norm (accuracy). An accuracy measure would explore the extent to which the classification (or construct) used by the author measures what the author really intents to measure. Thus, the reliability process ensures that the content analysis as reasonable methodology to analyse a qualitative database by a creation of quantitative indicators (Weber, 1990).
Milne and Adler (1999) recommend the use of tests for stability and reproducibility for CSD studies. Those two types of reliability are often called internal and external
reliability respectively. Internal reliability is established though a test-retest procedure. That is, internal reliability can be tested by a coder codifying reports more than once, within a specified period of time. If the coding presents the same results each time, internal reliability is confirmed. External reliability, or inter-rater reliability, measures the proportion of error that arises when the same text is coded by different coders using same decision rules.
This research considers two different samples. The first sample refers to AR and SA for the DP in the UK ETS during 5 years (2000-2004). The second sample involves AR and SA for a similar organization to each DP in the UK ETS during the same five years period. In order to ensure the accuracy and stability of the research instrument, AR and SA produced by DP during all those five years were analysed twice by the same coder (Thereza Raquel Sales de Aguiar), with an interval of a week between the two rounds. Several reasons motivated to carry double analysis of the same sample. First, there was a necessity to ensure that each category in the research instrument was sufficiently discrete to avoid double count. Second, the consistency of the application of rules needed to be certified. The final and probably the most important reason was to ensure that the coder achieved a sufficient degree of self training while using the research instrument and rules.
The internal reliability was measured by Krippendorff alpha, with agreement level above chance or better than 80% (Milne and Adler, 1999; Hasseldine et al., 2005). When the level of disagreement was higher than 20% a cross check was made between two round analyses for the same report. The first possible cross check was made to verify the code assigned to the same piece of disclosure. This cross check was made to ensure that no mistakes had occurred during the transcription of the results from the report itself to the research instrument. The second cross check was related to the volume of disclosure. The divergence found between the volumes calculated to the same piece of disclosure, which was classified with the same code during the two rounds analyses was not significant. In this case, one of the two counts was considered to figure as final result. Finally, if after the cross check procedure there is still a level of disagreement higher than 20%, a third round analysis was made.
An additional check was conducted with the objective of verifying if all disclosure about GCC was included into the analysis. This check was made with a search of some key words in the reports’ PDF files (see appendix 11). This procedure was adopted to all reports with PDF files in all samples.
After completing the internal reliability test, the next step was to prepare the data for the final analysis. For this purpose, the discrepancies were compared to each other and a decision was made with regard to which code was the appropriate to figure as final result.
3.6 Concluding comments
The purpose of the thesis is to explore the disclosure on the topic of GCC for a sample of UK organizations. In order to achieve this outcome content analysis has been used as a research method. This study focuses on UK ETS DP’ disclosures. It captures disclosures from both SA and AR for the years 2000 until 2004. This study explores whether members of the UK ETS changes the nature and volume of disclosures related to GHG emissions. This is tested on both on a longitudinal basis (for DP) and also on basis of a matched pair.
Data has been collected using a research instrument which was designed following from the literature in this area (see for example, Buhr, 1998; Mansley and Dlugolecki, 2001; Chan-Fishel, 2002; Livesey, 2002; PCA, 2002; Freedman and Jaggi, 2005; Roeser and Jackson, 2005; Bailey and Rupp, 2006; Ereaut and Segnit, 2006). The data captured by the research instrument includes information about organizations’ background, emissions, volume of disclosure by theme, inferred rationale behind the disclosures and other disclosures. The objective of gathering this data is to analyse disclosure trends and also to explore possible relationships between disclosures and organizational characteristics.