Analysis of the institutional Isomorphic Approach in Providing a Model for Carbon Disclosure Strategies in Financial Reporting of Tehran Stock Exchange Companies

Subject Areas : Management Accounting

MAHDI vaseei ¹ , Hasan Valiyan ^{2 *} , Mohammadreza Abdoli ³

1 - PhD student, Department of Accounting, Shahroud Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrood, Iran
2 - Assistant Professor, Department of Accounting, Shahrood Branch, Islamic Azad University, Iran anymore
3 - Associate Professor of Accounting, Shahrood Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrood, Iran

Received: 2022-04-23 Accepted : 2022-04-23 Published : 2022-02-20

Keywords: Institutional Isomorphism, Carbon Disclosure Strategies, Environmental accounting,

Abstract :

Carbon disclosure is one of the aspects of green accounting in “corporate strategies,” especially those operating across the capital market. Adherence to the disclosure of facts can facilitate sustainable development in societies. The purpose of this research is Analysis of the institutional Isomorphic Approach in Providing a Model for Carbon Disclosure Strategies in Financial Reporting of Tehran Stock Exchange companies. From a methodological point of view, this research is one of the combined researches which was done with the participation of 16 experts and environmental consultants at the academic level and economic enterprises in the qualitative section and 25 managers of Tehran Stock Exchange companies. Sampling in both target communities was available and homogeneous. In this study, the frequency and the appropriate nature of the three meta-synthesis analysis, Delphi and comprehensive model was used to analyze the structural interpretation. The results in the cross-sectional section, among the 48 related studies, confirmed 14 studies to be validated in the form of critical evaluation analysis, 20 statements and 3 main components. Then, the results in the Delphi analysis section with the aim of reaching the theoretical adequacy showed that out of a total of 20 initial propositions, finally 12 final propositions were approved and entered into the analysis of the comprehensive structural interpretive model. Finally, the results in this section showed that the most effective strategic proposition for carbon disclosure in financial reporting is the proposition of strengthening internal controls for waste control (G1) as a statement of choice and disclosure strategy the most ineffective propositions for the development of environmental culture were identified in order to protect the rights of stakeholders (G2).

References:

• احمدی، محسن.، ولی‌پور، هاشم.، زراعت‌کیش، یعقوب. (1398). ارائه الگویی برای گزارشگری مالی و غیرمالی زیست‌محیطی با رویکرد فازی، حسابداری سلامت، 8(1): 1-22


• بهارلو، روح‌اله.، معین‌الدین، محمود.، حیرانی، فروغ. (1399). تبیین مصادیق زیست‌محیطی در شرکت‌ها با رویکرد پدیدار‌شناسی (مطالعه موردی: صنایع سیمان، آهک و گچ)، حسابداری مدیریت، 13(45): 43-61.


• پورزمانیِ، زهرا.، مشایخی‌فرد، سعید. (1395). حسابداری مدیریت زیست‌محیطی با رویکرد یکپارچه برای طراحی تولید سبز با استفاده از تحلیل سلسله مراتبی فازی، حسابداری مدیریت، 8(27): 21-36.


• تیموری، مهسا.، بزازان، فاطمه.، اندایش، یعقوب. (۱۳۹۷). شناسایی بخش‌های کلیدی اقتصاد ایران بر اساس کمترین انتشار آلاینده کربن دی‌اکسید با استفاده از رویکرد ماتریس حسابداری اجتماعی، فصلنامه سیاست‌های مالی و اقتصادی، ۶(۲۳): ۹۷-۱۱۷


• جعفری‌نسب کرمانی، ندا.، حجازی، رضوان. (1397). حسابداری کربن، پژوهش حسابداری، 8(1): 69-85. https://doi.org/10.22051/ijar.2017.2157


• حقیقی، محمد.، جلالی، سیدحسین. (1396). شکل‌گیری شراکت‌های راهبردی از دیدگاه تئوری نهادی، مدیریت بازرگانی، 9(4): 717-738. https://doi.org/10.22059/jibm.2017.126495.1688


• خواجوی، شکراله.، اعتمادی‌جوریابی، مصطفی. (1394). مسئولیت اجتماعی شرکت‌ها و گزارشگری آن، حسابداری سلامت، 4(2): 104-123.


• رضایی، محمدرضا.، فرازمند، حسن.، صلاح‌منش، احمد. (۱۳۹۸). هزینه اجتماعی کربن در ایران: مفاهیم و نتایج مدل و رویکردهای جایگزین، پژوهش‌ها و سیاست‌های اقتصادی، ۲۷(۹۰): ۲۴۳-۲۷۶.


• رهنمای‌رودپشتی، فریدون.، غلامی حسن‌کیاده، فرید.، امین‌پور، آریا. (1399). بررسی تاثیر پراکندگی مالکیت بر رابطه بین افشای اختیاری و هزینه‌ی سرمایه مالکانه، دانش مالی تحلیل اوراق بهادار، 13(46): 25-37.


• سلیمانی، غلامرضا.، مجبوری‌یزدی، هدی. (1398). بررسی تاثیر استراتژی زیست محیطی، عدم اطمینان زیست محیطی و تعهد مدیریت ارشد بر عملکرد زیست محیطی شرکتی: نقش حسابداری مدیریت زیست محیطی، حسابداری مدیریت، 12(43): 87-104.


• علیزاده، سعیده.، بیات، مریم. (1395). بررسی اثر حکمرانی خوب بر محیط‌زیست درکشورهای با درآمد متوسط. فصلنامه علوم و تکنولوژی محیط‌زیست، 18(۲): 501-513.


• نوروزی، محمد. (1397). طراحی سبز محصول: رویکردی نو در حسابداری مدیریت محیط‌زیست، انسان و محیط زیست، 16(1): 25-36.


• Agyei, S. K., Yankey, B. (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


• Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1419–1440. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.57318391


• Besharov, M, L., Smith, W. K. (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


• DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101


• Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. The Pacific Sociological Review, 18(3): 22–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/1388226


• Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In The new institutionalism in organizantial analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.


• Glover, J., Champion, D., Daniels, K., & Dainty, A. (2014). An institutional theory perspective on sustainable practices across the dairy supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 152, 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.12.027


• Greenwood, R., Díaz, A. M., Li, S. X., & Lorente, J. C. (2010). The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses. Organization Science, 21(3): 521–539. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0453


• Guthrie, J., & Parker, L. D. (1989). Corporate social reporting: A rebuttal of legitimacy theory. Accounting and Business Research, 19(3): 343–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.1989.9728863


• Haque, S., Deegan, C. (2010). Corporate climate change‐related governance practices and related disclosures: Evidence from Australia. Australian Accounting Review, 20(2): 317–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/1835‐2561.2010.00107.x


• Hassan, A. and Guo, X. (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


• Herold, D. M. (2018^a). 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


• Herold, D. M., & Lee, K.‐ (2017^a). Carbon management in the logistics and transportation sector: An overview and new research directions, Carbon Management, 8(2): 79–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2017.1283923


• Hörisch, J., Freeman, R. E., & Schaltegger, S. (2014). Applying stakeholder theory in sustainability management: Links, similarities, dissimilarities, and a conceptual framework. Organization and Environment, 27(3): 328–346.10.1177/1086026614535786. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026614535786


• Hrasky, S. (2011). Carbon footprints and legitimation strategies: Symbolism or action? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 25, 174–198. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513571211191798


• 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


• Kostova, T., Roth, K., & Dacin, M. T. (2008). Institutional theory in the study of multinational corporations: A critique and new directions, Academy of Management Review, 33, 994–1006. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.34422026


• Kraatz, M. S., & 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


• 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


• Lenssen, G., Arenas, D., Lacy, P., Pickard, S., Kolk, A., & Pinkse, J. (2008). Business and climate change: Emergent institutions in global governance. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 8, 419–429.


• Linnenluecke, M. K., & Griffiths, A. (2010). Corporate sustainability and organizational culture. Journal of World Business, 45, 357–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2009.08.006


• Luo, L. (2017). The influence of institutional contexts on the relationship between voluntary carbon disclosure and carbon emission performance. Accounting and Finance. https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12267


• 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


• Matisoff, D. C., Noonan, D. S., & O'brien, J. J. (2013). Convergence in environmental reporting: assessing the Carbon Disclosure Project. Business Strategy and the Environment, 22, 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1741


• Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(10): 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550


• Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource‐based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 697–713. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097‐0266(199710)18:9<697::AID‐SMJ909>3.0.CO;2‐C


• Pålsson, H., & Kovács, G. (2014). Reducing transportation emissions: A reaction to stakeholder pressure or a strategy to increase competitive advantage. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 44, 283–304. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM‐09‐2012‐0293


• Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.


• Qian, W., Burritt, R., & Chen, J. (2015). The potential for environmental management accounting development in China. Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, 11, 406–428. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAOC‐11‐2013‐0092


• 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


• Reid, E. M., & Toffel, M. W. (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


• Rose, W. J., Mollenkopf, D. A., Autry, C. W., & Bell, J. E. (2016). Exploring urban institutional pressures on logistics service providers. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 46, 153–176. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM‐03‐2015‐0068


• Saka, C., Oshika, T. (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


• Schaltegger, S., & Csutora, M. (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


• Schaltegger, S., & Hörisch, J. (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.


• Scott, W. R. (2012). Embedding the examination of multilevel factors in an organization field context. JNCI Monographs, 2012, 32–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/jncimonographs/lgs007


• Scott, W., Ruef, M., Mendel, P., & Caronna, C. (2000). Institutional change and healthcare organizations: From professional dominance to managed care. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press


• Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & A. Sahlin (Eds.), The sage handbook of organizational institutionalism. London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200387.n4


• Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford: Oxford University press.


• Welbeck, E. E. (2017). The influence of institutional environment on corporate responsibility disclosures in Ghana. Meditari Accountancy Research, 25(4): 216–240. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR‐11‐2016‐0092


• Wooten, M., & Hoffman, A. J. (2008). Organizational fields: Past, present and future. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Shalin‐Andersson, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The sage handbook of organizational institutionalism. London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200387.n