• صفحه اصلی
  • اثربخشیِ انتخابِ تاثیرگذارترین راهبردِ افشای کربن تحت وجودِ مضامینِ آنومی ذینفعان

اشتراک گذاری

آدرس مقاله


کد مقاله : JEST-2106-5407 (R1) بازدید : 167 صفحه: 153 - 168

10.30495/jest.2021.61156.5407

نوع مقاله: پژوهشی

اثربخشیِ انتخابِ تاثیرگذارترین راهبردِ افشای کربن تحت وجودِ مضامینِ آنومی ذینفعان

محورهای موضوعی : اقتصاد محیط زیست

سحر امانی بابادی 1 , اله کرم صالحی 2 , محمد خدامرادی 3 , علیرضا جرجرزاده 4

1 - دانشجوی دکتری حسابداری، واحد اهواز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، اهواز، ایران.
2 - استادیار، گروه حسابداری، واحد مسجدسلیمان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، مسجدسلیمان، ایران. * (مسوول مکاتبات)
3 - استادیار، گروه ریاضی، واحد ایذه، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، ایذه، ایران.
4 - استادیار، گروه اقتصاد، واحد اهواز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، اهواز، ایران.

تاریخ دریافت : 1400/03/13 تاریخ پذیرش : 1400/05/18 تاریخ انتشار : 1400/12/01

کلید واژه: راهبردِ افشای کربن, اولویت‌بندی تفسیرگرایانه, آنومی ذینفعان,

چکیده مقاله :

زمینه و هدف: آنومی ذینفعان در محیط اجتماعی باهدفِ افزایش سطح کارکردهای پایدار، عملکردهای زیست محیطی شرکت‌ها را تحت تاثیر قرار می دهد و باعث می‌گردد تا شرکت‌ها در فضای رقابتی با تکیه بر رویکردهای رفتاری و تخصصی، اقدام به ارائه اطلاعات برای اقناع انتظارات اجتماعی می‌نمایند. یکی از این رویکردها، راهبردهای افشای کربن براساس فشارهای اجتماعی ذینفعان می‌باشد. هدف این پژوهش واکاوی اثربخشیِ انتخابِ تاثیرگذارترین راهبردِ افشای کربن تحت وجودِ مضامینِ آنومی ذینفعان می‌باشد.روش بررسی: در این پژوهش که در بازه زمانی ۱۴۰۰-۱۳۹۹ انجام گرفت، دو گروه از افراد جامعه هدف در سطح دانشگاه و در سطح بازار سرمایه مشارکت داشتند. برمبنای ماهیت پژوهش در بخش کیفی، از دو تحلیل فراترکیب و دلفی و در بخش کمی از تحلیلِ‌ اولویت بندیِ تفسیری استفاده شد.یافته‌ها: نتایج در بخش کیفی با بررسی ۱۹ پژوهش غربال شده، تعداد ۵ گزاره‌ی آنومیِ ذینفعان به عنوان معیارهای تحلیل و ۴ مولفه‌ی راهبردی افشای کربن به عنوان قوانین اولویت بندیِ تفسیری تعیین شدند که با انجامِ تحلیل دلفی پایایی مولفه‌ها و گزاره‌های پژوهش مورد تایید قرار گرفتند. سپس براساس تحلیل اولویت بندی تفسیری، یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهد که از میان ۵ گزاره‌ی آنومیِ ذینفعان، آنومیِ هنجاریِ ذینفعان مهمترین گزاره‌ی موثر در افشای کربن می‌باشد. همچنین مشخص گردید، راهبرد افشای اختیاری کربن، براساس آنومیِ هنجاریِ ذینفعان، مهمترین راهبرد در افشای کارکردهای کربن از جانب شرکت‌ها می‌باشد که می‌تواند به توسعه تعاملات در سطح بازار رقابتی کمک نماید.بحث و نتیجه‌گیری: نتایج پژوهش بیانگر این است که شرکت‌ها به منظور حفاظت از منافع ذینفعان، از طریق رویکردهای راهبرد اختیاری مبادرت به افشای کربن در قالب گزارشگری پایدار می‌نمایند و با ارائه این گونه گزارش‌های زیست محیطی، ضمن افزایش اعتماد عمومی، تعاملات اثربخشی را با ذینفعان برقرار می‌کنند.

چکیده انگلیسی:

Background and Objective: Stakeholder anomie in the social environment with the aim of increasing the level of sustainable functions, affects the environmental performance of companies and causes companies in a competitive environment, relying on behavioral and professional approaches, provide information to satisfy social expectations. One of these approaches is carbon exposure strategies based on the stakeholders’ social pressures. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of selecting the most effective carbon disclosure strategy in the presence of stakeholder anomic themes.Material and Methodology:  In this study, which was conducted during 2020-2021, Efforts were made to use the participation of two groups of people in the target community at the university and the capital market level. Based on the nature of research in the qualitative section, from two Meta-synthesis and Delphi and in the quantitative research section, use Interpretive Ranking Process (IRP).Fidings: The results in the qualitative section, by examining 29 screened studies, confirmed the 5 stakeholder anomic propositions of stakeholders as analysis criteria and 4 strategic components of carbon disclosure as use Interpretive Ranking Process rules. Then, based on IRP, the findings show that among the 5 stakeholder anomies, stakeholder normative anomie is the most important effective proposition in carbon disclosure. It was also found that the strategy of carbon voluntary disclosure, based on the normative anomie of stakeholders, is the most important strategy in the disclosure of carbon functions by companies that can help develop interactions at the competitive market.Discussion & Conclusion; The results indicate that in order to protect the interests of stakeholders, companies disclose carbon as a sustainable reporting through voluntary strategic approaches and by providing such environmental reports, while increasing public trust, establish the effective interactions with stakeholders.

منابع و مأخذ:


  1. Mazloomi, N., Sefidchiyan, S. (2015). Investigation the role of change capacity in the formation of organizational anomie with qualitative approach (Case study: A publishing institution). Organizational Behaviour Studies Quarterly, 4(2): 26-1. (In Persian)
    2.
  2. Khajavi, S., Etemadi, M. (2015). Corporate Social Responsibility and Its Reporting. Journal of Health Accounting, 4(2): 104-123. (In Persian)
    3.
  3. Barzegar, G., Hasannataj kordi, M., Malaki, D. (2019). An Investigation of the Audit Committee Characteristics Effects on Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure. Accounting and Auditing Review, 26(1): 19-38. (In Persian)
    4.
  4. Teymoori, M., Bozazan, F., Andish, Y. (2018). Identifying the Key Sectors of Iran's Economy in terms of Lowest Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Using the Social Accounting Matrix Approach. Quarterly journal of fiscal and Economic policies, 6(23): 97-117 (In Persian)
    5.
  5. Hahn, R., Reimsbach, D., & Schiemann, F. (2015). Organizations, climate change, and transparency: Reviewing the literature on carbon disclosure, Organization and Environment, 28(3): 80–102. https://doi.org/1177/1086026615575542
    6.
  6. Soleimani, G., Majbouri Yazdi, H. (2019). The Impact of Environmental Strategy, Environmental Uncertainty and Leadership Commitment on Corporate Environmental Performance: The Role of Environmental Management Accounting. Management Accounting, 12(43): 87-104. (In Persian)
    7.
  7. Majidpour, M. (2011). Carbon Capture and Storage: A Technology Policy for Transition to a Low Carbon Economy?. Science and Technology Policy Letters, 1(2): 95-106. (In Persian)
    8.
  8. Lee, K, H., Herold, D. M. (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
    9.
  9. Luo, X. R., Wang, D., & Zhang, J. (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
    10.
  10. Moradi, M. (2016). The Role of Legitimacy Theory and Stakeholder Theory in Corporate Social Responsibility, Quarterly Journal of Economic Studies, Financial Management, Accounting, 2(4): 174-186. (In Persian)
    11.
  11. Hayati M, Moshabbaki Esfahani A, khorshidi A, Mortazavi M. (2018). Presenting a Strategic Stakeholders Interaction Management Model (Case Study: Keshavarzi Bank). ORMR. 8(2): 57-72 (In Persian)
    12.
  12. Stead, J. G., & Stead, W. E. (2013). Sustainable strategic management. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
    13.
  13. Awaysheh, A., & Klassen, R. D. (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
    14.
  14. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22, 853–886. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9711022105
    15.
  15. Theriault, J, E., Young, L., Feldman Barrett, L. (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
    16.
  16. Chiou, Ch, L., Shu, P, G. (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
    17.
  17. Fu, L., Boehe, D., Orlitxky, M., Swanson, D, L. (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
    18.
  18. Moratis, L., Egmond, M, V. (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
    19.
  19. Brink, A, G., Tang, F., Yang, L. (2016). The Impact of Estimate Source and Social Pressure on Auditors' Fair Value Estimate Choices. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 2(28): 29-40.
    20.
  20. Mehrabanpour, M., Jandaghi Ghomi, M. (2019). Financial Status and Social Capital. Social Capital Management, 6(3): 327-349. (In Persian)
    21.
  21. Esmaeilpour R, Rezaei Pitenoei Y, Gholamrezapoor M. (2020). Corporate Social Responsibility and Internal Control Weakness: The Empirical Testing of Stakeholder and signaling Theories. Journal of Value & Behavioral Accounting, 4(8): 318-338. (In Persian)
    22.
  22. Abolhassankhani Ilchai, M. (2016). Media Bias in Financial Markets (With an Emphasis on Personal and Organizational Reasons) Mohsen Mirza-Abolhassan Khan Ilchi (Mohsen Ilchi. Rasaneh, 27(1): 149-172. (In Persian)
    23.
  23. 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
    24.
  24. Radhouane, I., Nekhili, M., Nagati, H. and Paché, G. (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
    25.
  25. 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
    26.
  26. Rezaee M R, Frazmand H, Salahmanesh A. (2019). The Social Cost of Carbon in Iran: Concepts and Results from the DICE-2016R Model and Alternative Approaches, Qjerp., 27(90): 243-276. (In Persian)
    27.
  27. Jafari nasab kermani, N., Hejazi, R. (2018). Carbon Accounting. Journal of accounting and social interests, 8(1): 69-85. (In Persian)
    28.

 

 

_||_

  1. Mazloomi, N., Sefidchiyan, S. (2015). Investigation the role of change capacity in the formation of organizational anomie with qualitative approach (Case study: A publishing institution). Organizational Behaviour Studies Quarterly, 4(2): 26-1. (In Persian)
    2.
  2. Khajavi, S., Etemadi, M. (2015). Corporate Social Responsibility and Its Reporting. Journal of Health Accounting, 4(2): 104-123. (In Persian)
    3.
  3. Barzegar, G., Hasannataj kordi, M., Malaki, D. (2019). An Investigation of the Audit Committee Characteristics Effects on Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure. Accounting and Auditing Review, 26(1): 19-38. (In Persian)
    4.
  4. Teymoori, M., Bozazan, F., Andish, Y. (2018). Identifying the Key Sectors of Iran's Economy in terms of Lowest Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Using the Social Accounting Matrix Approach. Quarterly journal of fiscal and Economic policies, 6(23): 97-117 (In Persian)
    5.
  5. Hahn, R., Reimsbach, D., & Schiemann, F. (2015). Organizations, climate change, and transparency: Reviewing the literature on carbon disclosure, Organization and Environment, 28(3): 80–102. https://doi.org/1177/1086026615575542
    6.
  6. Soleimani, G., Majbouri Yazdi, H. (2019). The Impact of Environmental Strategy, Environmental Uncertainty and Leadership Commitment on Corporate Environmental Performance: The Role of Environmental Management Accounting. Management Accounting, 12(43): 87-104. (In Persian)
    7.
  7. Majidpour, M. (2011). Carbon Capture and Storage: A Technology Policy for Transition to a Low Carbon Economy?. Science and Technology Policy Letters, 1(2): 95-106. (In Persian)
    8.
  8. Lee, K, H., Herold, D. M. (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
    9.
  9. Luo, X. R., Wang, D., & Zhang, J. (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
    10.
  10. Moradi, M. (2016). The Role of Legitimacy Theory and Stakeholder Theory in Corporate Social Responsibility, Quarterly Journal of Economic Studies, Financial Management, Accounting, 2(4): 174-186. (In Persian)
    11.
  11. Hayati M, Moshabbaki Esfahani A, khorshidi A, Mortazavi M. (2018). Presenting a Strategic Stakeholders Interaction Management Model (Case Study: Keshavarzi Bank). ORMR. 8(2): 57-72 (In Persian)
    12.
  12. Stead, J. G., & Stead, W. E. (2013). Sustainable strategic management. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
    13.
  13. Awaysheh, A., & Klassen, R. D. (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
    14.
  14. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22, 853–886. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9711022105
    15.
  15. Theriault, J, E., Young, L., Feldman Barrett, L. (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
    16.
  16. Chiou, Ch, L., Shu, P, G. (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
    17.
  17. Fu, L., Boehe, D., Orlitxky, M., Swanson, D, L. (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
    18.
  18. Moratis, L., Egmond, M, V. (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
    19.
  19. Brink, A, G., Tang, F., Yang, L. (2016). The Impact of Estimate Source and Social Pressure on Auditors' Fair Value Estimate Choices. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 2(28): 29-40.
    20.
  20. Mehrabanpour, M., Jandaghi Ghomi, M. (2019). Financial Status and Social Capital. Social Capital Management, 6(3): 327-349. (In Persian)
    21.
  21. Esmaeilpour R, Rezaei Pitenoei Y, Gholamrezapoor M. (2020). Corporate Social Responsibility and Internal Control Weakness: The Empirical Testing of Stakeholder and signaling Theories. Journal of Value & Behavioral Accounting, 4(8): 318-338. (In Persian)
    22.
  22. Abolhassankhani Ilchai, M. (2016). Media Bias in Financial Markets (With an Emphasis on Personal and Organizational Reasons) Mohsen Mirza-Abolhassan Khan Ilchi (Mohsen Ilchi. Rasaneh, 27(1): 149-172. (In Persian)
    23.
  23. 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
    24.
  24. Radhouane, I., Nekhili, M., Nagati, H. and Paché, G. (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
    25.
  25. 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
    26.
  26. Rezaee M R, Frazmand H, Salahmanesh A. (2019). The Social Cost of Carbon in Iran: Concepts and Results from the DICE-2016R Model and Alternative Approaches, Qjerp., 27(90): 243-276. (In Persian)
    27.
  27. Jafari nasab kermani, N., Hejazi, R. (2018). Carbon Accounting. Journal of accounting and social interests, 8(1): 69-85. (In Persian)
    28.

 

 

مقالات مرتبط

حقوق این وب‌سایت متعلق به سامانه مدیریت نشریات دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی است.
حق نشر © 1403-1400

صفحه اصلی| عضویت/ ورود| درباره سند| تماس با ما|
[English] [العربية] [en] [ar]