Do Corporate Carbon Policies Enhance Legitimacy? A Social Media Perspective

Federico Galán-Valdivieso; Laura Saraite-Sariene; Juana Alonso-Cañadas; María  del Carmen Caba-Pérez

doi:10.3390/su11041161

Do Corporate Carbon Policies Enhance Legitimacy? A Social Media Perspective

Galán-Valdivieso, Federico;Saraite-Sariene, Laura;Alonso-Cañadas, Juana;Caba-Pérez, María del Carmen 2019-02-22 00:00:00 sustainability Article Do Corporate Carbon Policies Enhance Legitimacy? A Social Media Perspective Federico Galán-Valdivieso , Laura Saraite-Sariene, Juana Alonso-Cañadas and María del Carmen Caba-Pérez * Mediterranean Research Center of Economy and Sustainable Development (CIMEDES), Department of Economics and Business, University of Almería, Ctra. Sacramento s/n, La Cañada de San Urbano, 04120 Almería, Spain; [email protected] (F.G.-V.); [email protected] (L.S.-S.); [email protected] (J.A.-C.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +34-950-015-857; Fax: +34-646-007-282 Received: 14 December 2018; Accepted: 11 February 2019; Published: 22 February 2019 Abstract: Stakeholders are increasingly concerned about climate change and companies’ commitment to anticipate future carbon-related risks, and grant or withdraw support depending on their perceptions of ﬁrms’ carbon performance. The aim of this research is to analyse which carbon-related factors inﬂuence stakeholders with regards to the legitimacy-granting process. The sample in this study includes 146 ﬁrms from North America and Europe committed to carbon mitigation, whose legitimacy is measured via social media interactions. Findings show that setting a corporate carbon policy and disclosing an internal price of carbon are positively linked to legitimacy, while other factors are negatively or not related to legitimacy. This study makes theoretical contributions, proposing a metric based on social media stakeholder engagement to measure corporate legitimacy, as well as practical implications, revealing which carbon information shapes stakeholders’ perception of ﬁrms’ climate performance, and opening new possibilities for future research. Keywords: corporate carbon policy; carbon management; stakeholder engagement; Carbon Disclosure Project; Facebook; corporate legitimacy 1. Introduction The ambitious target of keeping the global temperature rise well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, settled in the 2015 Paris Agreement [1], requires carbon and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to be drastically reduced. In order to meet this target, ﬁrms need to set a corporate carbon policy (CCP) and also embed it into the global strategy [2]. Stakeholders are increasingly interested in how ﬁrms deal with these changes [3], the efforts made in fulﬁlling carbon-reducing goals, and how these are embedded into their business models, strategies and practices [4]. By disclosing this information, companies signal their commitment to a greener future and in turn gain social approval, i.e., legitimacy. For instance, ExxonMobil reported its intention to provide shareholders with information on “energy demand sensitivities, implications of two degree Celsius scenarios, and positioning for a lower-carbon future” [5]. As a result, ﬁrms recognize the need to set a mutually beneﬁcial interaction with stakeholders [6], meeting their carbon-related demands to gain their approval and, consequently, reach higher levels of legitimacy. Previous research have explored the effects of establishing a CCP through different sustainability performance measurements [7,8], while others conﬁrm the relevance of carbon information disclosure: some works explore the impact of carbon disclosure on stock prices [9–12], others ﬁnd a signiﬁcant relationship between carbon disclosure and a wide range of ﬁrm performance metrics [13], while others conclude that there exists a positive relationship between carbon disclosure and subsequent carbon performance [14,15]. Board characteristics and their effects on carbon disclosure are also Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161; doi:10.3390/su11041161 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 2 of 23 examined in the literature [16], as well as the main determinants and motivations of participating in Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) annual surveys [17,18]. Thus, the literature proves that both setting a CCP and disclosing carbon-related information exerts a positive inﬂuence, measured by ﬁnancial and non-ﬁnancial metrics, dwelling on the ﬁnal effects for ﬁrms. However, there is a scarcity of works linking carbon issues and how they shape the stakeholders’ perspective and, ultimately, if this perception enhances corporate legitimacy. Prior research regularly mentions legitimacy as a desired consequence of establishing a CCP and disclosing related information, but as far as the authors are aware, there is a gap in the literature exploring this link. Using carbon and economic information from 146 European and North American ﬁrms included in the CDP report (2016), the ﬁrst aim of this study is to analyse to what extent establishing a CCP helps to reach higher levels of legitimacy. The measurement of legitimacy is one of the most controversial points in the literature. Since conventional measures of legitimacy (i.e., direct surveys and interviews, or traditional media) do not take into account the judgements of all types of stakeholders, a recent branch literature has been focusing on social media as an alternative measure for legitimacy [19], to capture the heterogeneous perception of a ﬁrm’s groups of interest. The rise of social media has provided stakeholders a set of platforms to express their views about which ﬁrms have gained social approval, and ﬁrms need to be aware of this shift [20]. Thus, the second aim of this study is to propose a new measure for legitimacy based on social media data. Legitimacy is here proxied by social media stakeholder engagement, a construct that encompasses a set of interactions that users can carry out on Facebook, one of the most important social networks world-wide. From a theoretical perspective, the results can contribute to extending the literature on corporate legitimacy and its measurement, proposing a new approach based on social media stakeholder engagement. The added value to the existent research lies on the ability of this metric to capture the online interactions of a plurality of stakeholders, overcoming the limitations of traditional metrics. Practitioners can also beneﬁt from this research, since ﬁndings help to understand how CCPs and the disclosure of related information can improve interaction with stakeholders, and therefore, help them to reach higher levels of legitimacy. Following the introduction, the rest of the article is organized as follows: Section 2 offers the theoretical background, Section 3 presents the hypotheses of the research, Section 4 speciﬁes the proposed model and provides information on the sample, in Section 5 results are commented and further discussed, and ﬁnally in Section 6 conclusions and ﬁnal recommendations are provided. 2. Theoretical Framework From a theoretical perspective, researchers ground corporate social responsibility (CSR) and carbon-related studies in some well-known economic theories, such as voluntary disclosure theory, institutional theory, or stakeholder theory [21,22], but no consensus exists since each theory presents subtle differences and is aligned more or less according to the researcher ’s focus, and even these theories overlap or can be reconciled [23]. Firms engage in sustainable initiatives mostly because of stakeholder pressure [24], and disseminate their sustainability performance in search of social approval, i.e., to gain legitimacy. Thus, legitimacy theory underpins this research. Under its precepts, corporate legitimacy is based on how ﬁrms seek social acceptance by adhering to regulative, normative or cognitive norms and expectations [25], and reach such legitimacy by disclosing information as a response to the expectations and pressures of society as a whole [26]. This habitually translates into communicating “non-ﬁnancial” data for “non-ﬁnancial” stakeholders, implying that CSR information disclosure is key to the legitimation process [23,27]. Following Suchman [28] and Basu and Pallazo [29], ﬁrms can adopt three different approaches: (1) pragmatic legitimacy, that is, considering legitimacy as a resource that can be managed (ﬁrms inﬂuence the environment by posturing that they are sustainable); (2) cognitive legitimacy, arising from the adaptation of ﬁrms to societal expectations (ﬁrms adapt to the environment, fostering consistency between global strategy and CSR activities); and (3) moral legitimacy, shaped by uncertainty conditions in which ﬁrms, together with relevant stakeholders, set Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 3 of 23 up or modify acceptable behaviours (ﬁrms are truly committed to shape the environment by engaging in CSR activities and embedding them in the corporate culture). Whichever the perspective assumed by the ﬁrms, they must ﬁrst deal with stakeholder pressure and reach legitimacy by establishing a sustainability strategy as part of the general corporate strategy, as it is not enough to merely react to changes in legislation but rather to be proactive in internalizing greener practices [30]. Once a sustainability strategy is established, ﬁrms alleviate stakeholder pressure by demonstrating their commitment through the disclosure of environmental, social and governance (ESG) information [31,32]. By doing so, ﬁrms enhance transparency [33], allowing stakeholders to grant their social support, and achieve legitimacy in the process. A dynamic equilibrium is then set, in that stakeholders continuously scrutinize actions taken and information disclosed by the ﬁrms in order to provide a social license for the businesses to keep operating [34], i.e., to keep implicitly legitimating their activities. Among the ESG factors, stakeholders are increasingly concerned with corporate carbon performance, since carbon is the GHG most frequently emitted into the atmosphere (65% of total emissions in 2014 [35]), pushing ﬁrms to enhance their commitment to reduce emissions. The process to materialize this commitment usually begins by developing and implementing a speciﬁc CCP within their corporate sustainability strategy [36,37]. A CCP can be deﬁned as a statement outlining objectives, strategies, actions and control mechanisms to address carbon management and how these are embedded into the corporate global strategy. Once a CCP is established, ﬁrms should adopt one of the strategies according to the goal established, namely carbon compensation, carbon reduction or carbon independence [38], and then set up a carbon management system (CMS) that encompasses all implementation plans and actions that allow them to meet the objectives outlined in the CCP, including how to integrate them into operational activities. Without establishing this entire mechanism, it is unlikely that a ﬁrm will be successful in managing carbon issues properly and less likely to obtain social legitimation. Thus, stakeholder pressure stands out as a key factor to enhance carbon efﬁciency and, by extension, a ﬁrm’s carbon policy [39]. Companies must consider all stakeholder groups and engage with them in the process of establishing a CCP and communicating its evolution and performance, in order to ensure its successful implementation [40,41]. In general, there is no obligation to disclose carbon-speciﬁc data, with the exception of large companies that have facilities participating in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme [42,43]. Two types of initiatives try to ﬁll this gap and help guide companies through the process of disclosure: (1) Given that no ﬁnancial reporting standards that address this type of disclosure have emerged from accountancy communities or from regulators (compromising the transparency and comparability of ﬁnancial statements, following De Aguiar [44]), practitioners and researchers are taking steps towards a theoretical and practical framework for “carbon accounting” [45–47]. This could be deﬁned as “the voluntary and/or mandatory recognition of direct and indirect GHG emissions, their evaluation in non-monetary and monetary terms as well as their auditing and reporting for internal and external purposes” [48]. (2) Firms voluntarily disclose carbon information, by participating in the CDP annual survey or providing this information in their own CSR reports [49], usually following the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Guidelines (the GRI employs terminology coupling GHG Protocol and ISO 14064 standards; the GHG Protocol is an international standard for corporate GHG accounting and reporting, founded by the World Resources Institute [50]). 3. Development of Hypotheses In order to meet ﬁnancial and non-ﬁnancial stakeholders’ expectations, ﬁrms need to disseminate all manner of climate-related information such as the disclosure of carbon emissions data, whether they are meeting their own climate change-reduction objectives and targets, how they are performing in relation to their competitors, or what are the ﬁnancial implications of climate change for the ﬁrm [51,52]. Therefore, the soundness of a CCP and its ability to engage stakeholders can be measured through a set of factors, which can be divided into four groups in line with Luo and Tang [15]: Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 4 of 23 - Carbon operations. Variables related to speciﬁc actions implemented to achieve the carbon-reduction goal: CCP, carbon reduction target, and internal carbon price. - Carbon emissions tracking. Variables related to the control of carbon performance: volume of carbon emissions and year-on-year variation in carbon emissions. - Carbon governance. Variables related to the organizational structures created to design, implement, manage and control the CCP: CSR committee. - Reporting and disclosure. Variables related to how a company can disseminate carbon-related information to stakeholders to enhance their engagement: CSR reporting. 3.1. Carbon Operations As ﬁrms engage in carbon reduction processes, the need to establish a CCP arises. A CCP encompasses a general strategy which includes all processes carried out and the measures implemented by a company to monitor, manage and reduce its carbon emissions [3]. It also includes information that facilitates the disclosure of corporate information on climate change [53], signalling to stakeholders a real commitment to reduce emissions. Previous literature conﬁrms the positive effects of establishing a CCP. Eleftheriadis and Anagnostopoulou [8] state that embedding carbon reduction and compensation strategies into core business activities can help carbon strategies to succeed; Chakrabarty and Wang [54] conclude that although CCPs do not positively affect ﬁnancial performance, neither do they harm it; Wong et al. [55] and Wong and Zapantis [56] explore the role of organizational culture in the adoption of carbon policies in the Australian construction industry. Based on the above, it is hypothesized that: Hypothesis 1 (H1). Firms with a CCP reach higher levels of corporate legitimacy. Setting speciﬁc carbon reduction targets (CRT) supports the global carbon strategy and helps to improve future emission reductions [3,7,8,57]. Luo and Tang [15] found that ﬁrms that effectively reduce carbon emissions are prone to set targets, initiate carbon programs and communicate internal information with external stakeholders, so a positive relationship between CRT and corporate legitimacy is expected. Hypothesis 2 (H2). Firms that set CRTs reach higher levels of corporate legitimacy. For ﬁrms, the question about climate change regulation is not a matter of whether they will be required to pay a price on carbon, but rather when they will be forced to do so. As companies’ proactivity become more concerned with this matter it is necessary for the cost of carbon to be embedded into the global corporate strategy. A growing number of ﬁrms are already using or starting to use this cost of carbon in their analysis of current and future projects [58] in order to ascertain that those projects remain proﬁtable in the long run whatever the environmental regulations [59]. This potential cost is commonly referred to as “internal carbon price”, and it is freely and internally determined by each company depending on its current level of CO2 emissions, its national legislation and its own perspectives regarding the inﬂuence of carbon. By disclosing such sensitive information to stakeholders, ﬁrms are signalling their commitment to anticipating future risks in relation to climate change [60], fostering transparency and, in doing so, reaching legitimacy [61]. Hence, the following hypothesis is formulated: Hypothesis 3 (H3). Firms disclosing their internal carbon price attain higher levels of corporate legitimacy. 3.2. Carbon Emissions Tracking The search for legitimacy (to avoid future risks) forces ﬁrms to be proactive in order to show their green commitment by communicating how polluting their activity is. The literature is not conclusive as to whether carbon emission ﬁgures and their disclosure are considered positive or negative by Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 5 of 23 stakeholders. Some works conclude that investors react negatively to carbon emissions [9,62], in the belief that they imply an increase in costs and climate risks and could be a mere marketing action of greenwashing. Others ﬁnd positive reactions [63] since carbon emission data is considered sensitive information, and its disclosure is associated with more transparency and a commitment to sustainability. These mixed ﬁndings are related to the limited availability of emissions data, which could lead to big misunderstandings [64]. Hence, data on carbon emissions performance is not expected to exert any inﬂuence on stakeholders since they are not homogeneously aware of the degree of compliance, stating the following research hypotheses in the null forms: Hypothesis 4 (H4). Carbon emissions volumes do not inﬂuence corporate legitimacy. Hypothesis 5 (H5). Effective reduction of carbon emissions does not inﬂuence corporate legitimacy. 3.3. Carbon Governance It has been observed that board-related variables are common in discretionary carbon disclosure studies, and speciﬁc boards, such as auditing, attract researchers’ attention [64,65]. An environmental or CSR committee is in charge of setting and implementing the carbon management strategy, and thus is expected to guarantee that “words are aligned with deeds” [66], and that the disclosed information helps stakeholders evaluate their investment risks, opportunities, and decisions [12], and consequently does not negatively affect the ﬁrm’s legitimacy and reputation [37]. In this regard, Fuente et al. [67] state that the quality of CSR depends on the activity of the CSR committee. In addition, Haque [68] found that there is a positive relationship between company carbon reduction initiatives and the existence of a CSR committee. Likewise, Lock and Seele [66] prove that almost 93% of the most sustainable companies have stand-alone CSR structures, meaning that speciﬁc resources are allocated to CSR. Therefore, stakeholders are expected to acknowledge its importance to ensure the fulﬁlment of carbon reduction targets. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed: Hypothesis 6 (H6). Firms that designate a speciﬁc CSR committee attain higher levels of corporate legitimacy. 3.4. Reporting and Disclosure Legitimacy is closely related to the successful implementation of CSR activities in organizations [69]. The traditional way to communicate ESG issues has evolved from information included in annual reports to an increasingly widespread practice of stand-alone CSR annual reports [70]. A ﬁrm is expected to gain legitimacy (or regain it if some critical event has damaged its image) by extensively disclosing CSR information [27], since it fosters the perception of transparency. Hence, it is expected that stakeholders rely on information provided in CSR reports, posing the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 7 (H7). Firms that publish a CSR report attain higher levels of corporate legitimacy. 4. Research Design 4.1. Methodology Palazzo and Scherer [71] assert that the challenge of legitimacy is to engage in true dialogue in a plural and globalizing society. According to Vergne [72], legitimacy is difﬁcult to measure due to its inherently changing nature in space and time, the different perspectives potentially assumable (pragmatic, moral or cognitive), and the different dimensions that integrate the construct (environmental, competitive, accountability and transactional legitimacy). Most works rely on metrics based on traditional media or direct stakeholder perceptions, but a new stream of research is using legitimacy measures based on social media data [73], which “[ . . . ] has the potential to complement Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 6 of 23 extant measures and contribute to a more encompassing understanding of legitimacy based on the judgments by various evaluators” [19]. However, little has been said of how legitimacy can be measured through social media, with researchers mainly focusing on Twitter-based metrics [74,75]. Recent research uses the number of followers or fans as a measure of legitimacy [76], but a more elaborate metric is needed to encompass the broad set of manifestations permitted in social networks. The current study proposes a different approach based on Facebook data. Facebook, with 2320 billion users per quarter (as of January 2019, according to the metrics of Statista), is considered one of the most popular platforms for online interaction [77] and allows different types of interactions through three simple buttons: “Like”, “Comment” and “Share” [78]. The metric proposed by Bonsón and Ratkai [79] is used to measure social media stakeholder engagement [80]. This metric is developed from the three main interactions allowed by Facebook, representing what companies can attain from users: popularity (“likes”), commitment (“comments”) and virality (“shares”). The dimensions and the ﬁnal metric of corporate legitimacy are presented in Table 1. Table 1. Metrics for corporate legitimacy. Sign Formula Measurement P1 Posts with likes / total posts Percentage of total posts liked Popularity P2 Total likes / total posts Average number of likes per post P3 (P2 / number of fans) 1000 Popularity of messages among fans C1 Posts with comments / total posts Percentage of total commented posts Commitment C2 Total comments / total posts Average number of comments per post C3 (C2 / number of fans) 1000 Commitment of fans V1 Posts with shares / total posts Percentage of the total posts shared Virality V2 Total shares / total posts Average number of shares per post V3 (V2 / number of fans) 1000 Virality of messages among fans Legitimacy (L) = Popularity (P3) + Commitment (C3) + Virality (V3) Source: adapted from Bonsón and Ratkai [80]. All posts published by ﬁrms in their Facebook proﬁle pages were considered to build the metrics. The main motive for this is that literature has corroborated that less than 20% of messages posted by companies on their Facebook or Twitter proﬁle pages could be linked to CSR activities [81,82], and that “ . . . publics have a greater tendency to engage with non-CSR messages than CSR messages” [81]. In other words, publics liked, shared, and commented more on non-CSR messages. Although it seems of interest and logical to focus solely on CSR-related posts, that analysis does not ﬁt with this work since it is focused on corporate legitimacy as a whole, that is to say, the social acceptance of all the economic activities of a ﬁrm. In accordance with the research goal, the dependent variable selected was “Legitimacy”. Assuming that the variables considered present a linear relationship, and using ordinary least squares (OLS), multiple linear regression was applied to determine the inﬂuence of factors identiﬁed as being relevant to the level of stakeholder engagement via Facebook fan-pages. Table 2 shows the measurement and codiﬁcation of independent variables: three carbon operation variables (CCP, carbon reduction target, and internal carbon price), two carbon emissions tracking variables (volume of carbon emissions and year-on-year variation in carbon emissions), one carbon governance variable (CSR committee) and one reporting and disclosure variable (CSR reporting). Table 2 also includes two control variables. Firstly, economic and environmental performance are common variables included in sustainability research, with Tobin’s Q probably being the most used to predict long-term ﬁnancial performance [13,15,26]. Although it does not appear extensively in the literature, ﬁnancial performance has been related both positively [83], and negatively [16] to legitimacy via social media. Broadly speaking, most stakeholders, with the exception of investors, Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 7 of 23 assume that higher economic proﬁtability is conversely related to sustainability performance [84] and thus stakeholders tend to believe that higher levels of proﬁtability imply worse environmental performance. In this work, therefore, a negative relationship is expected between ﬁnancial performance and stakeholder legitimacy. Table 2. Independent variables. Expected Group Hypothesis Name Variable Measurement Relationship 0—Firm does not report having a carbon reduction policy H1 Corporate carbon policy Policy Positive 1—Firm reports having a carbon reduction policy 0—Firm does not report having a Carbon operations carbon reduction target H2 Carbon reduction target Target Positive 1—Firm reports having a carbon reduction target 0—Firm does not report an internal carbon price H3 Internal carbon price ICP Positive 1—Firm reports an internal carbon price H4 Total carbon emissions (2016) Emissions Tons of CO No effect Carbon emissions tracking Variation in carbon emissions Total carbon emissions (2016) H5 DEmissions 1 No effect Total carbon emissions (2015) 2015–2016 0—Firm does not have a CSR Corporate social responsibility Carbon governance H6 Committee committee Positive (CSR) committee 1—Firm has a CSR committee 0—Firm does not publish a separate CSR or sustainability report Reporting and disclosure H7 Report on CSR or sustainability Report Positive 1—Firm publishes a separate CSR or sustainability report (Market value common shares + Control variable Tobin’s Q Proﬁtability Value preferred stocks + ST Debt + Negative LT Debt) / Total Assets. Natural logarithm of a company Control variable Size Size Negative total assets in USD Source: Thomson Reuters Eikon database, except carbon operations variables (2016 CDP report). Firm size is also a critical aspect habitually mentioned in the literature and is commonly used to help explain social, economic and environmental practices [85,86]. Many studies prove a positive relationship between size and CSR disclosure, since larger organizations present higher levels of emissions and consequently are more likely to disclose carbon information [87,88]. However, larger companies are more visible, subject to greater pressure and exposed to more intense public scrutiny [89]. This could lead to a greater likelihood of ﬁrms falsifying CSR information, modifying said information in order to appear more “attractive” to stakeholders [29,90]. Firms would otherwise risk disappointing stakeholders for failing to meet carbon mitigation goals, and thus making it difﬁcult to reach legitimacy. Hence, a negative link is expected between company size and corporate legitimacy. Another two variables commonly used in the related literature were initially considered in the analysis: industry [88,91] and country [32,92]. However, a previous correlation analysis proved that these two variables were found to be irrelevant and were therefore discarded from the study. The ﬁnal model is as follows: Engagement = b + b ICP + b Policy + b Target + b Emissions + b i 0 1 i 2 i 3 i 4 i 5 DEmissions + b Committee + b Re port + b (1) i 6 i 7 i 8 Pro f itability + b Size + # i 9 i i 4.2. Sample Selection and Data Collection As carbon-related data disclosure is mostly voluntary, the search for companies started by considering those that show a strong commitment to anticipating future climate-change related risks, i.e., those participating in carbon disclosure initiatives. Because of its size and public availability, Carbon Disclosure Project initiatives have become one of the main sources of climate change Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 8 of 23 information from many of the world’s largest ﬁrms [93]. In addition, it is one of the few initiatives to interview senior managers to ascertain their opinions, actions and prospects on carbon issues. Furthermore, and by adhering to this initiative, companies signal their commitment to addressing carbon issues. Therefore, and in line with many other authors [10,11,94], the initial sample of 517 ﬁrms was collected from the 2016 CDP report. The report also classiﬁes ﬁrms at an industrial and regional level, including Africa (21) Asia (122), Europe (214), Latin America (26), North America (111) and Oceania (23). Region is a noticeable variable since the different degrees of technology development, regulations or cultural context may inﬂuence the importance that ﬁrms place on environmental issues [95,96]. Therefore, for the sake of greater homogeneity [97] and given their similarities in those aspects and also in the degree of carbon awareness, only ﬁrms from North America and Europe were initially considered. Stakeholder engagement is thought to be the most important indicator for corporate legitimacy [98]. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to suggest that legitimacy could be proxied through social media stakeholder engagement, which could be deﬁned as the degree of involvement that stakeholders manifest towards a company via social networks. The current study relies on Facebook data to capture the online interactions of stakeholders as a representative of such engagement. Based on the companies initially selected, researchers checked the existence and visited the ofﬁcial and active Facebook proﬁle page of each company. Those without a proﬁle page or one that was inactive were removed, reducing the sample to 223 companies. Following this, data from the Facebook proﬁle pages was extracted on a daily basis and then aggregated. Given the large amount of data, a proper computerized treatment was deemed necessary and the principles of big data management were applied. Data gathering and aggregation were performed using speciﬁc software which was developed ad-hoc for this research. The extraction module retrieves public data available from Facebook pages through queries based on M language of Power Query to the API Graph of Facebook. Firms without information of carbon emissions were removed, ﬁnally totalling 146 companies (94 European and 52 North American). Table 3 describes sample selection and Table 4 exhibit sector information. Firms in the sample are shown in Appendix A. Table 3. Sample selection. Sample Selection (from CDP Report 2016) Europe North America Firms based in Europe and North America 214 111 Less ﬁrms without an active Facebook page (93) (35) Less ﬁrms not disclosing carbon emissions information (27) (24) Final sample (N = 146) 94 52 Table 4. Sector statistics. GICS Sector Europe North America Total Consumer Discretionary 15 3 18 Consumer Staples 6 4 10 Energy 8 10 18 Financials 14 4 18 Health Care 2 1 3 Industrials 12 10 22 Information Technology 2 3 5 Materials 12 6 18 Telecom. Services 4 1 5 Utilities 19 10 29 Total 94 52 146 Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 9 of 23 4.3. Descriptive Analysis Table 5 exhibits the main statistics for the independent variables, grouped according to their region of belonging. It is worth noting that, on average, European ﬁrms in the sample report emitting less CO (11,403,001 tons) than North American (15,289,462), although being bigger in terms of size (total assets in billion $). Consequently, US and Canadian companies have a slightly higher carbon reduction rate (3% vs. 1%). Firms from both regions present similar ﬁgures in terms of setting a CCP, having a stand-alone CSR report and a CSR committee, but Europeans declare setting carbon mitigation targets and using an internal carbon price more frequently. Table 5. Mean and standard deviation of independent variables (N = 146). Europe (N = 95) North America (N = 51) Total (N = 146) Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Policy 0.11 0.31 0.10 0.30 0.10 0.305 Target 0.40 0.49 0.25 0.44 0.35 0.478 ICP 0.49 0.50 0.27 0.45 0.42 0.495 Emissions (Tons of CO ) 11,403,001.34 23,333,333.76 15,289,462.35 25,897,905.40 12,760,600.73 24,242,183.14 DEmissions 0.01 0.25 0.03 0.16 0.02 0.22 Committee 0.93 0.263 0.86 0.348 0.90 0.295 Report 0.99 0.103 0.92 0.272 0.97 0.182 Proﬁtability 1.69 1.88 0.66 0.16 1.33 1.59 Size (billion $) 233.37 606.79 123.81 293.99 146.61 348.08 Table 6 shows the online corporate legitimacy data. For the year 2016, 29,772 posts from 43,883,907 fans were analysed. Of note and of outstanding relevance are the number of “likes”, 15,957,315, which proved to be the most used interaction among the main options available in Facebook. This was much greater than the 812,772 comments and 2,805,527 sharing actions. [79] metrics display some interesting additional information. Almost 100% of the postings (96.63%) have been accepted (liked) by Facebook users (P1). To a lesser extent, 78.98% of all postings were disseminated through the action of sharing (V1), and only 64% of posts received a comment (C1). When calculating the metrics (Table 7), the previous hierarchy persists: greater interaction takes place through “Likes” (P2), 25,549 per post, followed by “Shares” (V2), 3,928 per post approximately, and ﬁnally “Comments” (C2), 619 per posting. Along the same line, if the number of fans (P3, C3, V3) is taken into account, popularity is still by far the most important dimension. Legitimacy (L), measured by simply adding the value of the last three metrics, determines the level of interaction reached by a ﬁrm with its fans. Most ﬁrms receive a valuation lower than 20, with an average of 7.18465, meaning that popularity makes up 72% of the total score. The absolute data reﬂects the same feature observed in the metrics: the predominance of simplicity (likes are preferred over shares, and shares over comments), since it is faster and easier to send a “like” or to share a post than to comment on it [79,99,100], and thus it is the preferred option for showing some level of engagement with the ﬁrm. Having selected ﬁrms from only two regions and using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test to conﬁrm normality assumption, popularity, commitment and virality were further analysed using the t-Student test to see if there were further differences. Means of all the metrics for North American ﬁrms are not signiﬁcantly different from those in Europe at p = 0.05 or better using a one-tailed student t-test, which allows the researchers to jointly analyse the legitimacy of all ﬁrms considered in the sample. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 10 of 23 Table 6. Corporate actions, audience and interactions on Facebook (N = 146). Total Min Max Mean Standard Dev. Number of Posts 29,772 1 584 203.92 156.228 Number of Fans 43,883,907 68 5,782,940 300,574.71 783,384.632 Number of Likes 15,957,315 3 4,292,266 109,296.68 395,814.723 Number of Shares 2,805,527 2 659,867 19,215.94 68,885.707 Number of Comments 812,772 0 104,048 5,565.02 14,440.834 Table 7. Corporate metrics of popularity, commitment, virality and legitimacy (N = 146). Metric Min Max Mean Standard Dev. P1 0.21752 1.00000 0.96629 0.11398 Popularity P2 0.36253 25,549.20238 520.15631 2,177.22837 P3 0.20875 64.705882 5.25588 8.20156 C1 0.01208 1.00000 0.63696 0.31357 C2 0.00000 619.333333 29.51013 81.29586 Commitment C3 0.00000 9.66562 0.36034 1.13932 V1 0.01812 1.00000 0.78981 0.22172 Virality V2 0.01812 3,927.77976 88.78613 351.92247 V3 0.02155 52.94117 1.56842 6.17198 Legitimacy L 0.27698 121.56862 7.18465 14.23548 4.4. Correlation Analysis A Pearson correlation matrix was completed to explore possible multicollinearity between the exogenous factors (Table 8). It also shows preliminary and surprising results for the dependent variable: four factors, namely carbon reduction target, CSR committee, CSR report and ﬁrm size exhibit negative and signiﬁcant relationships with legitimacy. This test also reveals signiﬁcant correlations between predictors. CCPs are positively correlated with CRT, the existence of a CSR committee, the publication of CSR reports, and size. Another interesting point is the negative relationship arising from the variables “Target” and “DEmissions”, and the positive link between Target, CSR committee and CSR report. Although signiﬁcant, all correlations do not affect the robustness of the model proposed, as seen in the variance inﬂation factors (VIF) shown in further Table 8. Table 8. Correlation matrix (N = 146). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Legitimacy (1) 1 Policy (2) 0.001 1 Target (3) 0.218 *** 0.304 *** 1 ICP (4) 0.080 0.025 0.061 1 Emissions (5) 0.069 0.076 0.021 0.104 1 DEmissions (6) 0.020 0.025 0.149 * 0.025 0.116 1 Committee (7) 0.189 ** 0.281 *** 0.204 ** 0.040 0.045 0.001 1 Report (8) 0.316 *** 0.238 *** 0.201 ** 0.007 0.096 0.038 0.194 ** 1 0.468 Proﬁtability (9) 0.042 0.002 0.121 0.173** 0.127 0.097 0.063 1 *** Size (10) 0.199** 0.193 ** 0.110 0.170** 0.294 *** 0.079 0.254 ** 0.108 0.258 *** 1 Note: signiﬁcant at p < 0.01 ***; p < 0.05 **; p < 0.1 *. Correlation analysis shows that CCPs are positively related to the existence of a CSR committee, conﬁrming ﬁndings from previous research that ﬁrms that engage in sustainability strategies tend to appoint speciﬁc structures within the company to implement and control the global carbon strategy [37]. Related to this, CCP is also linked to size, implying that larger ﬁrms are more willing to establish a CCP and allocate speciﬁc resources to fulﬁl their carbon mitigation goals [101] and undertake a wider set of initiatives [38,57]. CCPs are also positively correlated with CRT and the publication of CSR Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 11 of 23 reports, conﬁrming the ﬁndings of [8] signifying that ﬁrms committed to decreasing carbon emissions adopt the full set of minimum requirements to control the fulﬁlment of the established strategy and goals. Correlation results contradict the ﬁndings of Eleftheriadis and Anagnostopoulou [102], who do not detect an impact of emissions management practices on emissions performance. The variables Target, CSR committee and CSR report are positively linked with each other, so perhaps CSR committees take all necessary measures to control the environmental issues and disclosure information on its performance, even though stakeholders may not perceive this. In summary, the results show a tendency for stakeholders to consider some data and dismiss others. Those mixed results could be due to: (1) the complexity of carbon-related data; (2) the diversity and heterogeneity of stakeholders; (3) the lack of mandatory guidelines; and (4) ﬁrm inconsistency. 5. Results and Discussion According to the multiple regression analysis (Table 9), the explanatory ability of the model results in a moderate adjustment (21.1%) with six of the proposed variables making signiﬁcant contributions. Companies using an internal carbon price and disclosing its value (H3), within a CCP framework (H1), gain more support from their stakeholders via social media, since this signals a commitment to anticipate climate-related future risks and to foster transparency [32,96]. Table 9. Regression results (N = 146). Unstand. Coefﬁcients Std. Error t VIF (Constant) 59.937 16.982 3.529 *** Policy 19.511 8.418 2.318 ** 1.221 Target 6.477 3.031 2.137 ** 1.185 ICP 3.941 2.302 1.712 * 1.103 Emissions 1.288E-8 0.000 0.271 1.127 DEmissions 4.234 5.600 0.756 1.323 Committee 5.869 3.984 1.473 1.178 Report 21.097 6.294 3.352 *** 1.121 Proﬁtability 1.530 0.827 1.850 * 1.477 Size 1.667 0.683 2.440 ** 1.307 R-squared 0.211 Durbin–Watson 1.914 Signiﬁcant at: p < 0.01 ***; p < 0.05 **; p < 0.1 *. Mixed results derive from the regression analysis. Most factors exhibit a signiﬁcant relationship with legitimacy, with the exception of the emission-related variables (as hypothesized in H4 and H5) and the CSR committee (thus rejecting H6). Two factors exhibit negative links, namely carbon reduction targets and CSR reports, leading to a rejection of H2 and H7. As expected, the existence of a CCP (H1) and the disclosure of the internal carbon price (H3) exert a positive inﬂuence on legitimacy. Establishing a CCP is perhaps the main clue that a company is truly committed to sustainability, incorporating environmental practices into its internal processes and even its organizational culture [55]. Having a CCP implies that there exists at least some degree of coordination and that the initiatives performed effectively to contribute to the carbon mitigation goals. For this reason, stakeholders consider that a CCP creates value in sustainability terms (H1). In fact, stakeholder perception of corporate carbon mitigation efforts depends on the perceived utility of sustainable investments and their integration into the business strategy [103]. However, it seems that for stakeholders, it is not the existence of a CCP that is of utmost importance, but rather the lack of a CCP that sends a signal that the ﬁrm does not care about climate issues or risks and this in turn compromises future corporate performance [51]. The link between legitimacy and carbon price is also positive and signiﬁcant (H3), meaning that disclosing the use of an internal price of carbon has a positive effect on legitimacy. This information Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 12 of 23 could be considered both sensitive and innovative. In the process of anticipating future climate risks, ﬁrms estimate the cost of their carbon emissions, assuming that in the future they will presumably face outﬂows of money in the form of taxes or carbon allowances to compensate for the pollution emitted [104,105]. Furthermore, only ﬁrms engaged in CDP have disclosed the use of an internal carbon price, so by publishing this exclusive data, ﬁrms are signalling to stakeholders their commitment to anticipate future climate-related risks, and thus attaining higher levels of social media engagement. According to the results, setting a CRT exerts a negative inﬂuence on stakeholders (H2) who will then withdraw social media support. Although results show that CCPs are positively correlated with CRT (that is, a CCP usually involves setting speciﬁc carbon mitigation targets), it is difﬁcult for some groups of stakeholders to discern whether such targets are realistic or the degree of compliance reached. As stated by Papagiannakis et al. [103], the mere introduction of CRT is not enough for the heterogeneous groups of stakeholders to grant their support. Interestingly, a negative relationship arises from the variables “Target” and “DEmissions”, so those companies prone to setting a numerical objective of carbon reduction have a greater chance of achieving their goals [106]. As hypothesized, neither carbon emissions volumes (H4) nor their decrease from the previous year (H5) exhibit any relationship with legitimacy. One possible reason is that to conﬁrm that targets are met stakeholders would need to look at the previous year ’s data and check if the accomplishment has been achieved. Such a level of effort does not seem worth their while in order to grant or withdraw their social media support, and contrary to Reilly and Hynan [107], legitimacy is not affected. Another explanation involves the volume of carbon emissions: ﬁrms with higher levels of GHG emissions tend to not promote such information since it can damage their reputation and stock market valuation, but the damage caused increases if such information is not disclosed [62,107]. Hence, there is an incentive to disguise carbon ﬁgures, and stakeholders are aware of the risk that the disclosed ﬁgures may not truly reﬂect the carbon performance of companies. In fact, the most polluting companies are always under scrutiny, and disclosing and disseminating positive environmental results arouses suspicion and the risk of being labelled as “greenwashers” [108]. The diversity of stakeholders is another possible motive. While some groups (mainly investors) perceive carbon emission disclosure as informationally valuable [109], others consider such information as incomplete [110], too complex or symptomatic of potential costs not fully addressed [9], and thus react negatively. Having a CSR committee, another sign of true commitment to sustainability, is surprisingly not signiﬁcant (H6). A stand-alone sustainability board is thought to “be in a better position to address environmental issues from the perspective of opportunities and commitments to stakeholders” [12], but according to the results of this study, stakeholders fail to recognize its relevance. Similarly, publishing CSR reports does not enhance legitimacy (H7), rather the contrary. While they are currently an acceptable way to disseminate such data, CSR reports are not exempt from criticism for many reasons: (1) no consensus exists on what standards or metrics should be used, and a growing number of organizations try to ﬁll this gap, such as the GRI [111]; (2) sustainability reporting provides ﬁrm-biased, low-quality information, and therefore lacks credibility [92]; (3) they are aimed at a few stakeholders, mainly ﬁnancial analysts and NGOs, which intensively analyse the information provided to grant or withdraw support [112]. Standardized reporting is particularly useful for ﬁnancial stakeholders but could be puzzling or meaningless for non-ﬁnancial not specialized stakeholders, such as clients. So, stakeholders search for other sources of information with the potential to depict the actual behaviour of the company, not only regarding sustainability but with regard the whole behaviour of the ﬁrm. Another possible explanation is that, as ﬁrms increasingly present sustainability reports, this stops being a distinctive competitive advantage, and the added value of the information disclosed remains only for those stakeholders who have the knowledge to draw conclusions from these reports, so stakeholders participate more with those more social media-active ﬁrms. Furthermore, stakeholders legitimate ﬁrms not only for the quantitative information disclosure, but also for the initiatives, actions and outcomes of such initiatives that ﬁrms publicize in social media, which it is perceived as a signal of environmental commitment. If companies only rely on disclosing (mandatory or not) quantitative Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 13 of 23 structured data to show their advances in carbon mitigation, it may signal to stakeholders that such companies are only concerned about looking “green” rather than being sustainable [113,114]. 6. Conclusions, Limitations and Suggestions Stakeholders are increasingly worried about how companies face climate risks by setting carbon mitigation policies and how these policies are embedded into the corporate sustainability and global strategy. In fact, regulatory and stakeholder pressure, and not economic reasons, have been identiﬁed as the main drivers forcing companies to integrate sustainability into their global strategy [24,115]. Stakeholders must be aware of corporate activities to manage carbon issues properly, as it is one of the many sources of information for conceding legitimacy. Under the threat of losing legitimacy, ﬁrms react by engaging in sustainable initiatives and disclosing their environmental performance. This research takes carbon and sustainability information from the CDP 2016 report on European and North American participants to analyse how such data contribute to create corporate legitimacy. The results are summarized as follows. First, holding a CCP and disclosing an internal carbon price are signiﬁcantly and positively linked to legitimacy. These factors are critical in anticipating future carbon-linked issues, and signal to stakeholders a ﬁrm’s real commitment not only with carbon mitigation, but also with the long-term viability of the company [8,60,61]. Second, the relationship between setting a target and having a CSR report with legitimacy is signiﬁcant and negative, that is, stakeholders perceive such factors as a mere way to “look green”. Companies are tempted to misuse carbon information to promote a greener image [32] and reach legitimacy, rather than engaging in costly sustainability initiatives [115], especially if they are bad environmental performers [14] or their legitimacy is threatened [17,116]. Third, data on emissions and having a CSR are factors not related to legitimacy [62,63], which can be explained by the diversity of needs, expectations and access to information of stakeholders [117], the different relevance of some data varies from one group to another [118], or the inherent biases exhibited by stakeholders, which lead them to ﬁlter or skim relevant information [119,120]. Summing up, the match between what the company says and does is truly relevant. Stakeholders try to distinguish between a mere sustainable posture based on smoke and mirrors and a true commitment to sustainability, which in turn enhances or damages corporate legitimacy [28,29]. Researchers and practitioners may ﬁnd useful the ﬁndings of this study. From the theoretical point of view, it contributes to extend the literature on legitimacy theory, and allows researchers to move forward with regard to the inﬂuence of CCP and that of the dissemination of carbon information on stakeholders’ decisions to grant or withdraw corporate legitimacy. It also provides a new approximation to measure legitimacy, considering a new stream of research that focuses on the beneﬁts of using social media engagement. For practitioners, effective management of social media is essential to achieve higher levels of legitimacy. Identifying which data exerts a greater inﬂuence on stakeholders is key to improving legitimacy. It is also important that ﬁrms reciprocate and show commitment to their stakeholders, improving their interaction with users and responding quickly to their comments, thus enhancing the corporate image and reputation and, in doing so, reaching legitimacy. However, two major issues are emerging that challenge legitimacy, impeding that the CSR data disseminated through social media is of equal use to all stakeholders. First, companies disseminate CSR information in an unstructured way, hindering the necessary homogeneity to compare data from different sources. Secondly, as the Securities and Exchange Commission [121] pointed out, social media can take the form of different platforms, so companies should advise stakeholders that relevant information is being disseminated via new channels and make them aware of important disclosures, such as registering or subscribing. This research is not exempt from limitations that could lead to improvements of this work. First, the sample is based on respondents of the CDP annual survey, which is enlarged in terms of the number of participants with every version. However, other initiatives (even analyses of CSR reports) could be considered to extend the research. Second, in order to guarantee homogeneity, the study Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 14 of 23 has been limited exclusively to companies headquartered in Europe, the United States and Canada. Nonetheless, other regions are included in the CDP annual survey, so this work could be extended to include these. A third limitation is the dummy nature of most of the external variables, being necessary to incorporate more continuous variables and external cutting. Fourth, and regarding the period of study, this one-year research, although quite robust, could be extended to include a wider period to provide a greater vision of how online participation varies over time. Additionally, as stated by Meixner et al. [122], not all internal and external stakeholders are reachable via social media, and this could have represented a major bias in measuring corporate legitimacy through social media stakeholder engagement. Finally, a major limitation is that all Facebook posts have been considered to measure legitimacy, not only CSR-based posts, so we were not able to measure a speciﬁc component of legitimacy: sustainability legitimacy. Analysing only posts mentioning sustainability issues could yield interesting results. Further improvements could come from many different approaches. A deeper analysis of the relationship between establishing a CCP and the evolution of carbon-related data could be performed over several years, including the inﬂuence that meeting the goals could exert on different measures of proﬁtability. Adding new carbon variables is also proposed, as well as new proxies to corporate legitimacy. Clustering stakeholders (even getting data from other specialized social media networks such as LinkedIn), since heterogeneity is probably the main cause of the negative or non-existent impacts obtained [24], or clustering ﬁrms depending on their sustainability strategy [38] or their pollution intensity [108], would provide new opportunities to extend this research. Although industry did not prove to be a signiﬁcant variable, results could change if other regions were considered or if time-series data were part of the analysis. Previous works have examined the link between stakeholder pressure and CCP on environmental performance, so linking this perspective with that posited in this work, that is, an analysis of the complete effect of all three variables (stakeholder pressure, environmental performance and legitimacy) could provide new insights. Finally, given that CSR information disclosure is now mandatory in Europe but not in the USA and other countries, an opportunity arises to check differences in corporate legitimacy between these two different frameworks. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, editing (ﬁnal draft) and supervision, M.C.C.-P.; data collection and formal analysis, J.A.-C.; formal analysis and writing (original draft), F.G.-V. and L.S.-S. Funding: This research was funded by the Research Group “Nuevos Enfoques en Finanzas y Sistemas de Información Empresarial” (SEJ385) at the University of Almería (Spain). Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 15 of 23 Appendix A Table A1. Firms included in the study. European companies (N = 94) Company GICS Sector Country Company GICS Sector Country A2A Utilities Italy J Sainsbury Plc Consumer Staples United Kingdom Abengoa Industrials Spain JCDecaux SA Consumer Discretionary France ACCIONA S.A. Utilities Spain JD Sports Fashion Consumer Discretionary United Kingdom Air France—KLM Industrials France Kering Consumer Discretionary France AkzoNobel Materials Netherlands Kingspan Group PLC Industrials Ireland Anglo American Materials United Kingdom Koninklijke KPN NV Telecom Services Netherlands Arçelik A.S. Consumer Discretionary Turkey Lundin Petroleum Energy Sweden Atos SE Information Technology France Magyar Telekom Nyrt. Telecom Services Hungary Aviva plc Financials United Kingdom Marks and Spencer Group plc Consumer Discretionary United Kingdom Balfour Beatty Industrials United Kingdom Marshalls Materials United Kingdom Banco Popular Español S.A. Financials Spain Michelin Consumer Discretionary France Barclays Financials United Kingdom MOL Nyrt. Energy Hungary BASF SE Materials Germany Mondi PLC Materials United Kingdom BMW AG Consumer Discretionary Germany Morgan Advanced Materials Industrials United Kingdom BNP Paribas Financials France National Grid PLC Utilities United Kingdom Bouygues Industrials France Nestlé Consumer Staples Switzerland BP Energy United Kingdom Nordea Bank Financials Sweden BT Group Telecom. Services United Kingdom Novartis Health Care Switzerland CaixaBank Financials Spain Piraeus Bank Financials Greece Carlsberg Breweries A/S Consumer Staples Denmark PUMA SE Consumer Discretionary Germany Carrefour Consumer Staples France Renault Consumer Discretionary France Centrica Utilities United Kingdom Renishaw Information Technology United Kingdom Commerzbank AG Financials Germany Royal DSM Materials Netherlands Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 16 of 23 Table A1. Cont. European companies (N = 94) Credit Suisse Financials Switzerland Royal Dutch Shell Energy Netherlands Crest Nicholson PLC Consumer Discretionary United Kingdom Saint-Gobain Industrials France Danone Consumer Staples France SAS Industrials Sweden Danske Bank A/S Financials Denmark Severn Trent Utilities United Kingdom Deutsche Bank AG Financials Germany Snam S.P.A. Utilities Italy Domino’s Pizza Group plc Consumer Discretionary United Kingdom Societe Generale Financials France EDF Utilities France Solvay S.A. Materials Belgium Enagas Utilities Spain Spire Healthcare Health Care United Kingdom Endesa Utilities Spain Statoil ASA Energy Norway ENEL SpA Utilities Italy Stora Enso Oyj Materials Finland ENGIE Utilities France SUEZ Utilities France Eni SpA Energy Italy T.Garanti Bankasi A.S. Financials Turkey Ferrovial Industrials Spain Terna Utilities Italy Fortum Oyj Utilities Finland ThyssenKrupp AG Materials Germany Galp Energia SGPS SA Energy Portugal Total Energy France Gas Natural SDG SA Utilities Spain Travis Perkins Industrials United Kingdom Glencore plc Materials Switzerland Unilever plc Consumer Staples United Kingdom Groupe Eurotunnel Industrials France United Utilities Utilities United Kingdom HeidelbergCement AG Materials Germany VEOLIA Utilities France Hill & Smith Holdings Materials United Kingdom Verbund AG Utilities Austria Iberdrola SA Utilities Spain Vodafone Group Telecom Services United Kingdom Inditex Consumer Discretionary Spain Volkswagen AG Consumer Discretionary Germany Int. Cons. Airlines Group, S.A. Industrials Spain Whitbread Consumer Discretionary United Kingdom North American companies (N = 52) Company GICS Sector Country Company GICS Sector Country Adobe Systems, Inc. Information Technology United States Encana Corporation Energy Canada Aimia Inc. Consumer Discretionary Canada Eversource Energy Utilities United States Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 17 of 23 Table A1. Cont. European companies (N = 94) Air Canada Industrials Canada Exxon Mobil Corporation Energy United States Ameren Corporation Utilities United States General Electric Company Industrials United States ARC Resources Ltd. Energy Canada General Motors Company Consumer Discretionary United States Archer Daniels Midland Consumer Staples United States Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Financials United States Autodesk, Inc. Information Technology United States Hess Corporation Energy United States Bank of Montreal Financials Canada Hormel Foods Consumer Staples United States Barrick Gold Corporation Materials Canada Monsanto Company Materials United States Biogen Inc. Health Care United States NRG Energy Inc. Utilities United States BNY Mellon Financials United States Ormat Technologies Inc Utilities United States Campbell Soup Company Consumer Staples United States Owens Corning Industrials United States Canadian Natural Resources Energy Canada Parker-Hanniﬁn Corporation Industrials United States Limited Capital Power Corporation Utilities Canada PG&E Corporation Utilities United States Cenovus Energy Inc. Energy Canada Rogers Communications Inc. Telecom Services Canada Chevron Corporation Energy United States Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. Industrials United States ConocoPhillips Energy United States Suncor Energy Inc. Energy Canada Covanta Energy Corporation Industrials United States Teck Resources Limited Materials Canada Cummins Inc. Industrials United States Tennant Company Industrials United States Dean Foods Company Consumer Staples United States The Dow Chemical Company Materials United States Delta Air Lines Industrials United States TransAlta Corporation Utilities Canada DTE Energy Company Utilities United States TransCanada Corporation Energy Canada Duke Energy Corporation Utilities United States Walt Disney Company Consumer Discretionary United States E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Materials United States Waste Management, Inc. Industrials United States Company WEC Energy Group Xcel Eastman Chemical Company Materials United States Utilities United States Energy Inc. EMC Corporation Information Technology United States Wells Fargo & Company Financials United States Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 18 of 23 References 1. International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook 2016. Paris. 2016. Available online: https://www.iea. org/newsroom/news/2016/november/world-energy-outlook-2016.html (accessed on 19 December 2017). 2. Kolk, A.; Levy, D. Winds of Change: Corporate Strategy, Climate change and Oil Multinationals. Eur. Manag. J. 2001, 19, 501–509. [CrossRef] 3. Damert, M.; Paul, A.; Baumgartner, R.J. Exploring the determinants and long-term performance outcomes of corporate carbon strategies. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 160, 123–138. [CrossRef] 4. Schaltegger, S.; Csutora, M. Carbon accounting for sustainability and management. Status quo and challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 36, 1–16. [CrossRef] 5. Kerber, R.; McWilliams, G. Exxon to Provide Details on Climate-Change Impact to Its Business. Available online: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxon-mobil-climate/exxon-to-provide-details-on-climate- change-impact-to-its-business-idUSKBN1E602L (accessed on 18 December 2017). 6. Nielsen, A.E.; Thomsen, C.; Nielsen, A.E.; Thomsen, C. Reviewing corporate social responsibility communication: A legitimacy perspective. Corp. Commun.: Int. J. 2018, 23, 492–511. [CrossRef] 7. Wade, B.; Dargusch, P.; Grifﬁths, A. Deﬁning best practice carbon management in an Australian context. Australas. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 21, 52–64. [CrossRef] 8. Eleftheriadis, I.; Anagnostopoulou, E. Measuring the level of corporate commitment regarding climate change strategies. Int. J. Clim. Chang. Strateg. Manag. 2017, 9, 626–644. [CrossRef] 9. Lee, S.Y.; Park, Y.S.; Klassen, R.D. Market responses to ﬁrms’ voluntary climate change information disclosure and carbon communication. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2015, 22, 1–12. [CrossRef] 10. Bimha, A.; Nhamo, G. Sustainable Development, Share Price and Carbon Disclosure Interactions: Evidence From South Africa’s JSE 100 Companies. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 25, 400–413. [CrossRef] 11. Grifﬁn, P.A.; Lont, D.H.; Sun, E.Y. The Relevance to Investors of Greenhouse Gas Emission Disclosures. Contemp. Account. Res. 2017, 34, 1265–1297. [CrossRef] 12. Jaggi, B.; Allini, A.; Macchioni, R.; Zagaria, C. The Factors Motivating Voluntary Disclosure of Carbon Information: Evidence Based on Italian Listed Companies. Organ. Environ. 2018, 31, 178–202. [CrossRef] 13. Broadstock, D.C.; Collins, A.; Hunt, L.C.; Vergos, K. Voluntary disclosure, greenhouse gas emissions and business performance: Assessing the ﬁrst decade of reporting. Br. Account. Rev. 2018, 50, 48–59. [CrossRef] 14. Qian, W.; Schaltegger, S. Revisiting carbon disclosure and performance: Legitimacy and management views. Br. Account. Rev. 2017, 49, 365–379. [CrossRef] 15. Luo, L.; Tang, Q. Does voluntary carbon disclosure reﬂect underlying carbon performance? J. Contemp. Account. Econ. 2014, 10, 191–205. [CrossRef] 16. Liao, L.; Luo, L.; Tang, Q. Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure. Br. Account. Rev. 2015, 47, 409–424. [CrossRef] 17. Ott, C.; Schiemann, F.; Günther, T. Disentangling the determinants of the response and the publication decisions: The case of the Carbon Disclosure Project. J. Account. Public Policy 2017, 36, 14–33. [CrossRef] 18. Blanco, C.; Caro, F.; Corbett, C.J. An inside perspective on carbon disclosure. Bus. Horiz. 2017, 60, 635–646. [CrossRef] 19. Etter, M.; Colleoni, E.; Illia, L.; Meggiorin, K.; D’Eugenio, A. Measuring Organizational Legitimacy in Social Media: Assessing Citizens’ Judgments With Sentiment Analysis. Bus. Soc. 2018, 57, 60–97. [CrossRef] 20. Abitbol, A.; Lee, S.Y. Messages on CSR-dedicated Facebook pages: What works and what doesn’t. Public Relat. Rev. 2017, 43, 796–808. [CrossRef] 21. Fernando, S.; Lawrence, S. A Theoretical Framework for CSR Practices: Integrating Legitimacy Theory, Stakeholder Theory and Institutional Theory. J. Theor. Account. Res. 2014, 10, 149–178. 22. Omran, M.A.; Ramdhony, D. Theoretical Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: A Critical Review. Int. J. Account. Financ. Report. 2015, 5, 38. [CrossRef] 23. Hummel, K.; Schlick, C. The relationship between sustainability performance and sustainability disclosure—Reconciling voluntary disclosure theory and legitimacy theory. J. Account. Public Policy 2016, 35, 455–476. [CrossRef] 24. Sprengel, D.; Busch, T. Stakeholder Engagement and Environmental Strategy—The Case of Climate Change. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2011, 20, 351–364. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 19 of 23 25. Deephouse, D.L.; Carter, S. An Examination of Differences Between Organizational Legitimacy and Organizational Reputation*. J. Manag. Stud. 2005, 42, 329–360. [CrossRef] 26. Clarkson, P.M.; Li, Y.; Richardson, G.D.; Vasvari, F.P. Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Account. Organ. Soc. 2008, 33, 303–327. [CrossRef] 27. Bachmann, P.; Ingenhoff, D. Legitimacy through CSR disclosures? The advantage outweighs the disadvantages. Public Relat. Rev. 2016, 42, 386–394. [CrossRef] 28. Suchman, M. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 571–610. [CrossRef] 29. Basu, K.; Palazzo, G. Corporate social responsibility: A process model of sensemaking. Acad. Manag. Rev. (Amr) 2008, 33, 122–136. [CrossRef] 30. Wijethilake, C. Proactive sustainability strategy and corporate sustainability performance: The mediating effect of sustainability control systems. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 196, 569–582. [CrossRef] 31. Yu, Y.; Choi, Y. Stakeholder pressure and CSR adoption: The mediating role of organizational culture for Chinese companies. Soc. Sci. J. 2016, 53, 226–235. [CrossRef] 32. Liesen, A.; Hoepner, A.G.; Patten, D.M.; Figge, F. Does stakeholder pressure inﬂuence corporate GHG emissions reporting? Empirical evidence from Europe. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2015, 28, 1047–1074. [CrossRef] 33. Fernandez-Feijoo, B.; Romero, S.; Ruiz, S. Effect of Stakeholders’ Pressure on Transparency of Sustainability Reports within the GRI Framework. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 122, 53–63. [CrossRef] 34. Ranängen, H.; Lindman, Å. Exploring corporate social responsibility practice versus stakeholder interests in Nordic mining. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 19, 3204–3208. [CrossRef] 35. World Resources Institute Historical GHG Emissions. Available online: https://www.climatewatchdata. org/ghg-emissions (accessed on 21 February 2018). 36. Engert, S.; Baumgartner, R.J. Corporate sustainability strategy—Bridging the gap between formulation and implementation. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 113, 822–834. [CrossRef] 37. Yunus, S.; Elijido-Ten, E.; Abhayawansa, S. Determinants of carbon management strategy adoption. Manag. Audit. J. 2016, 31, 156–179. [CrossRef] 38. Weinhofer, G.; Hoffmann, V.H. Mitigating Climate Change—How Do Corporate Strategies Differ? Bus. Strategy Environ. Bus. Strat. Env. 2010, 19, 77–89. [CrossRef] 39. Lee, S.; Lee, S. An Analysis of the Effects of Climate Change Policy, Stakeholder Pressure, and Corporate Carbon Management on Carbon Efﬁciency on the Korean Petrochemical Industry. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4420. [CrossRef] 40. Bocken, N.M.P.; Allwood, J.M. Strategies to reduce the carbon footprint of consumer goods by inﬂuencing stakeholders. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 35, 118–129. [CrossRef] 41. Jeswani, H.K.; Wehrmeyer, W.; Mulugetta, Y. How warm is the corporate response to climate change? Evidence from Pakistan and the UK. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2008, 17, 46–60. [CrossRef] 42. Liesen, A.; Figge, F.; Hoepner, A.; Patten, D.M. Climate Change and Asset Prices: Are Corporate Carbon Disclosure and Performance Priced Appropriately? J. Bus. Financ. Account. 2017, 44, 35–62. [CrossRef] 43. Tang, S.; Demeritt, D. Climate Change and Mandatory Carbon Reporting: Impacts on Business Process and Performance. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2018, 27, 437–455. [CrossRef] 44. De Aguiar, T.R. Turning accounting for emissions rights inside out as well as upside down. Environ. Plan. C Politics Space 2017, 36, 139–159. [CrossRef] 45. Ascui, F.; Lovell, H. Carbon accounting and the construction of competence. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 36, 48–59. [CrossRef] 46. Bebbington, J.; Larrinaga-González, C. Carbon trading: Accounting and reporting issues. Eur. Account. Rev. 2008, 17, 697–717. [CrossRef] 47. Black, C.M. Accounting for Carbon Emission Allowances in the European Union: In Search of Consistency. Account. Eur. 2013, 10, 223–239. [CrossRef] 48. Stechemesser, K.; Guenther, E. Carbon accounting: A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 36, 17–38. [CrossRef] 49. Depoers, F.; Jeanjean, T.; Jérôme, T. Voluntary Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Contrasting the Carbon Disclosure Project and Corporate Reports. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 134, 445–461. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 20 of 23 50. Dragomir, V.D. The disclosure of industrial greenhouse gas emissions: A critical assessment of corporate sustainability reports. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 29–30, 222–237. [CrossRef] 51. Sullivan, R.; Gouldson, A. Does voluntary carbon reporting meet investors’ needs? J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 36, 60–67. [CrossRef] 52. Guenther, E.; Guenther, T.; Schiemann, F.; Weber, G. Stakeholder Relevance for Reporting: Explanatory Factors of Carbon Disclosure. Bus. Soc. 2016, 55, 361–397. [CrossRef] 53. Wahyuni, D.; Ratnatunga, J. Carbon strategies and management practices in an uncertain carbonomic environment e lessons learned from the coal-face. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 96, 397–406. [CrossRef] 54. Chakrabarty, S.; Wang, L. Climate Change Mitigation and Internationalization: The Competitiveness of Multinational Corporations. Thunderbird Int. Bus. Rev. 2013, 55, 673–688. [CrossRef] 55. Wong, P.S.P.; Ng, S.T.T.; Shahidi, M. Towards understanding the contractor ’s response to carbon reduction policies in the construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2013, 31, 1042–1056. [CrossRef] 56. Wong, P.S.P.; Zapantis, J. Driving carbon reduction strategies adoption in the Australian construction sector – The moderating role of organizational culture. Build. Environ. 2013, 66, 120–130. [CrossRef] 57. Lee, S.Y. Corporate climate change strategies in responding to climate change. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2012, 21, 33–48. [CrossRef] 58. Dhavale, D.G.; Sarkis, J. Stochastic internal rate of return on investments in sustainable assets generating carbon credits. Comput. Oper. Res. 2017, 89, 324–336. [CrossRef] 59. CDP. Embedding a Carbon Price into Business Strategy. 2016. Available online: https: //6fefcbb86e61af1b2fc4-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/ documents/000/001/132/original/CDP_Carbon_Price_report_2016.pdf?1474899276 (accessed on 20 January 2017). 60. Andrew, J.; Cortese, C. Carbon Disclosures: Comparability, the Carbon Disclosure Project and the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. Aust. Account. Bus. Financ. J. 2011, 5, 6–18. 61. Kalu, J.U.; Buang, A.; Aliagha, G.U. Determinants of voluntary carbon disclosure in the corporate real estate sector of Malaysia. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 182, 519–524. [CrossRef] 62. Matsumura, E.M.; Prakash, R.; Vera-Muñoz, S.C. Firm-Value Effects of Carbon Emissions and Carbon Disclosures. Account. Rev. 2013, 89, 695–724. [CrossRef] 63. Grifﬁn, P.A.; Sun, Y. Going green: Market reaction to CSRwire news releases. J. Account. Public Policy 2013, 32, 93–113. [CrossRef] 64. Krishnamurti, C.; Velayutham, E. The inﬂuence of board committee structures on voluntary disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions: Australian evidence. Pac. -Basin Financ. J. 2017, 50, 65–81. [CrossRef] 65. de Villiers, C.; Naiker, V.; van Staden, C.J. The effect of board characteristics on ﬁrm environmental performance. J. Manag. 2011, 37, 1636–1663. [CrossRef] 66. Lock, I.; Seele, P. CSR governance and departmental organization: A typology of best practices. Corp. Gov. Int. J. Bus. Soc. 2016, 16, 211–230. [CrossRef] 67. Fuente, J.A.; García-Sánchez, I.M.; Lozano, M.B. The role of the board of directors in the adoption of GRI guidelines for the disclosure of CSR information. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 141, 737–750. [CrossRef] 68. Haque, F. The effects of board characteristics and sustainable compensation policy on carbon performance of UK ﬁrms. Br. Account. Rev. 2017, 49, 347–364. [CrossRef] 69. Devin, B.L.; Lane, A.B. Communicating Engagement in Corporate Social Responsibility: A Meta-Level Construal of Engagement. J. Public Relat. Res. 2014, 26, 436–454. [CrossRef] 70. Michelon, G.; Pilonato, S.; Ricceri, F. CSR reporting practices and the quality of disclosure: An empirical analysis. Crit. Perspect. Account. 2015, 33, 59–78. [CrossRef] 71. Palazzo, G.; Scherer, A.G. Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. J. Bus. Ethics 2006, 66, 71–88. [CrossRef] 72. Vergne, J. Toward a new measure of organizational legitimacy: Method, validation, and illustration. Organ. Res. Methods 2011, 14, 484–502. [CrossRef] 73. Colleoni, E. CSR communication strategies for organizational legitimacy in social media. Corp. Commun. 2013, 18, 228–248. [CrossRef] 74. Etter, M. Broadcasting, reacting, engaging – three strategies for CSR communication in Twitter. J. Commun. Manag. 2014, 18, 322–342. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 21 of 23 75. Castelló, I.; Etter, M.; Årup Nielsen, F. Strategies of Legitimacy Through Social Media: The Networked Strategy. J. Manag. Stud. 2016, 53, 402–432. [CrossRef] 76. Lee, Y.J.; Yoon, H.J.; O’Donnell, N.H. The effects of information cues on perceived legitimacy of companies that promote corporate social responsibility initiatives on social networking sites. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 83, 202–214. [CrossRef] 77. Manetti, G.; Bellucci, M.; Bagnoli, L. Stakeholder Engagement and Public Information Through Social Media: A Study of Canadian and American Public Transportation Agencies. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 2016, 47, 991–1009. [CrossRef] 78. Cho, M.; Schweickart, T.; Haase, A. Public engagement with nonproﬁt organizations on Facebook. Public Relat. Rev. 2014, 40, 565–567. [CrossRef] 79. Bonsón, E.; Ratkai, M. A set of metrics to assess stakeholder engagement and social legitimacy on a corporate Facebook page. Online Inf. Rev. 2013, 37, 787–803. [CrossRef] 80. Bonsón Ponte, E.; Carvajal-Trujillo, E.; Escobar-Rodríguez, T. Corporate Facebook and stakeholder engagement. Kybernetes 2015, 44, 771–787. [CrossRef] 81. Cho, M.; Furey, L.D.; Mohr, T. Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility on Social Media. Bus. Prof. Commun. Q. 2017, 80, 52–69. [CrossRef] 82. Etter, M. Reasons for low levels of interactivity. Public Relat. Rev. 2013, 39, 606–608. [CrossRef] 83. Kim, S.; Koh, Y.; Cha, J.; Lee, S. Effects of social media on ﬁrm value for U.S. restaurant companies. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 49, 40–46. [CrossRef] 84. Qiu, Y.; Shaukat, A.; Tharyan, R. Environmental and social disclosures: Link with corporate ﬁnancial performance. Br. Account. Rev. 2016, 48, 102–116. [CrossRef] 85. Surroca, J.; Tribó, J.A. Managerial Entrenchment and Corporate Social Performance. J. Bus. Financ. Account. 2008, 35, 748–789. [CrossRef] 86. Davis, G.F.; Cobb, J.A. Resource dependence theory: Past and future. In Stanford’s Organization Theory Renaissance, 1970–2000 (Research in the Sociology of Organizations); Schoonhoven, C.B., Dobbin, F., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2010; Volume 28, pp. 21–42. 87. Gallego-Álvarez, I.; Quina-Custodio, I.A. Disclosure of corporate social responsibility information and explanatory factors. Online Inf. Rev. 2016, 40, 218–238. [CrossRef] 88. Giannarakis, G. The determinants inﬂuencing the extent of CSR disclosure. Int. J. Law Manag. 2014, 56, 393–416. [CrossRef] 89. Lu, Y.; Abeysekera, I. Stakeholders’ power, corporate characteristics, and social and environmental disclosure: Evidence from China. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 64, 426–436. [CrossRef] 90. Melloni, G.; Caglio, A.; Perego, P. Saying more with less? Disclosure conciseness, completeness and balance in Integrated Reports. J. Account. Public Policy 2017, 36, 220–238. [CrossRef] 91. Sashi, C.M. Customer engagement, buyer-seller relationships, and social media. Manag. Decis. 2012, 50, 253–272. [CrossRef] 92. Lock, I.; Seele, P. The credibility of CSR (corporate social responsibility) reports in Europe. Evidence from a quantitative content analysis in 11 countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 122, 186–200. [CrossRef] 93. Gasbarro, F.; Iraldo, F.; Daddi, T. The drivers of multinational enterprises’ climate change strategies: A quantitative study on climate-related risks and opportunities. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 160, 8–26. [CrossRef] 94. Hay, S.E. Placing a Value on Internal Carbon Prices. Master Thesis, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, 2016. Available online: https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/52191/Thesis---ﬁnal---SARAH-HAY- --2-.pdf?sequence=5 (accessed on 10 May 2017). 95. Bonsón, E.; Flores, F. Social media and corporate dialogue: The response of global ﬁnancial institutions. Online Inf. Rev. 2011, 35, 34–49. [CrossRef] 96. De Rosario, A.H.; Martín, A.S.; Pérez, M.D.C.C. The Use of Facebook to Promote Engagement with Local Governments in Spain BT. In Social Media and Local Governments: Theory and Practice; Sobaci, M.Z., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 219–241, ISBN 978-3-319-17722-9. 97. Bonsón, E.; Bednarova, M.; Escobar-Rodríguez, T. Corporate YouTube practices of Eurozone companies. Online Inf. Rev. 2014, 38, 484–501. [CrossRef] 98. Wagner, R.; Seele, P. Uncommitted Deliberation? Discussing Regulatory Gaps by Comparing GRI 3.1 to GRI 4.0 in a Political CSR Perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 146, 333–351. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 22 of 23 99. Bonsón, E.; Royo, S.; Ratkai, M. Facebook Practices in Western European Municipalities: An Empirical Analysis of Activity and Citizens’ Engagement. Adm. Soc. 2014, 49, 320–347. [CrossRef] 100. del Mar Gálvez-Rodríguez, M.; Saraite, L.; Alonso-Cañadas, J.; del Carmen Caba-Pérez, M. Stakeholder Engagement via Social Media in the Hospitality Sector. In Opportunities and Challenges for Tourism and Hospitality in the BRIC Nations; Dhiman, M., Ed.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2016; Volume i, pp. 15–30, ISBN 9781522516866. 101. Udayasankar, K. Corporate social responsibility and ﬁrm size. J. Bus. Ethics 2008, 83, 167–175. [CrossRef] 102. Doda, B.; Gennaioli, C.; Gouldson, A.; Grover, D.; Sullivan, R. Are Corporate Carbon Management Practices Reducing Corporate Carbon Emissions? Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2016, 23, 257–270. [CrossRef] 103. Papagiannakis, G.; Voudouris, I.; Lioukas, S. The Road to Sustainability: Exploring the Process of Corporate Environmental Strategy Over Time. Bus. Strat. Env. 2013, 23, 254–271. [CrossRef] 104. Villar-Rubio, E.; Huete-Morales, M.D. Market Instruments for a Sustainable Economy: Environmental Fiscal Policy and Manifest Divergences. Rev. Policy Res. 2017, 34, 255–269. [CrossRef] 105. Galán-Valdivieso, F.; Villar-Rubio, E.; Huete-Morales, M.D. The erratic behaviour of the EU ETS on the path towards consolidation and price stability. Int. Environ. Agreem. Politics Law Econ. 2018, 18, 689–706. 106. Bui, B.; de Villiers, C. Carbon emissions management control systems: Field study evidence. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 166, 1283–1294. [CrossRef] 107. Reilly, A.H.; Hynan, K.A. Corporate communication, sustainability, and social media: It’s not easy (really) being green. Bus. Horiz. 2014, 57, 747–758. [CrossRef] 108. Lyon, T.P.; Montgomery, A.W. Tweetjacked: The Impact of Social Media on Corporate Greenwash. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 118, 747–757. [CrossRef] 109. Jaggi, B.; Allini, A.; Macchioni, R. Do investors ﬁnd carbon information useful? Evidence from Italian ﬁrms. Rev. Quant. Financ. Account. 2018, 50, 1031–1056. [CrossRef] 110. Clarkson, P.M.; Li, Y.; Pinnuck, M.; Richardson, G. The Valuation Relevance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the European Union Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme. Eur. Account. Rev. 2015, 24, 551–580. [CrossRef] 111. Merrill, C. The SEC Revisits Sustainability: Will Sustainability Reporting Become Mandatory for Publicly-Traded U.S. Corporations? Available online: https://www.tmtindustryinsider.com/2016/10/ the-sec-revisits-sustainability-will-sustainability-reporting-become-mandatory-for-publicly-traded-u-s- corporations/ (accessed on 28 June 2018). 112. Diamond, D.W.; Verrecchia, R.E. Disclosure, Liquidity, and the Cost of Capital. J. Financ. 1991, 46, 1325–1359. [CrossRef] 113. Schoeneborn, D.; Trittin, H. Transcending transmission: Towards a constitutive perspective on CSR communication. Corp. Commun. Int. J. 2013, 18, 193–211. [CrossRef] 114. Arendt, S.; Brettel, M. Understanding the inﬂuence of corporate social responsibility on corporate identity, image, and ﬁrm performance. Manag. Decis. 2010, 48, 1469–1492. [CrossRef] 115. Boiral, O.; Henri, J.F.; Talbot, D. Modeling the Impacts of Corporate Commitment on Climate Change. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2012, 21, 495–516. [CrossRef] 116. Cho, C.H.; Guidry, R.P.; Hageman, A.M.; Patten, D.M. Do actions speak louder than words? An empirical investigation of corporate environmental reputation. Account. Organ. Soc. 2012, 37, 14–25. [CrossRef] 117. Curseu, P.L.; Schruijer, S.G. Stakeholder diversity and the comprehensiveness of sustainability decisions: The role of collaboration and conﬂict. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017, 28, 114–120. [CrossRef] 118. Penz, E.; Polsa, P. How do companies reduce their carbon footprint and how do they communicate these measures to stakeholders? J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 195, 1125–1138. [CrossRef] 119. Eppler, M.J.; Mengis, J. The concept of information overload: A review of literature from organization science, accounting, marketing, MIS, and related disciplines. Inf. Soc. 2004, 20, 325–344. [CrossRef] 120. Dutot, V.; Lacalle Galvez, E.; Versailles, D.W. CSR communications strategies through social media and inﬂuence on e-reputation. Manag. Decis. 2016, 54, 363–389. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 23 of 23 121. Securities and Exchange Commission Report of Investigation Pursuant to Section 21(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Available online: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/34-69279.pdf (accessed on 2 April 2013). 122. Meixner, O.; Pollhammer, E.; Haas, R. The communication of CSR activities via social media. A qualitative approach to identify opportunities and challenges for small and medium-sized enterprises in the agri-food sector. In Proceedings of the International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria, 9–13 February 2015; pp. 56–69. © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Sustainability Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/multidisciplinary-digital-publishing-institute/do-corporate-carbon-policies-enhance-legitimacy-a-social-media-V39HLagDkG

Loading next page...

References (121)

E. Villar-Rubio, M. Huete-Morales (2017)
Market Instruments for a Sustainable Economy: Environmental Fiscal Policy and Manifest Divergences
Review of Policy Research, 34
C. Sashi (2012)
Customer engagement, buyer‐seller relationships, and social media
Management Decision, 50
D. Dhavale, Joseph Sarkis (2018)
Stochastic internal rate of return on investments in sustainable assets generating carbon credits
Comput. Oper. Res., 89
G. Melloni, A. Caglio, P. Perego (2017)
Saying More with Less? Disclosure Conciseness, Completeness and Balance in Integrated Reports
SRPN: Corporate Reporting (Topic)
Alan Abitbol, Sun Lee (2017)
Messages on CSR-dedicated Facebook pages: What works and what doesn’t
Public Relations Review, 43
Moonhee Cho, Lauren Furey, T. Mohr (2017)
Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility on Social Media
Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 80
Yingjun Lu, Indra Abeysekera (2014)
Stakeholders Power, Corporate Characteristics and Social and Environmental Disclosure: Evidence from China
Corporate Finance: Governance
P. Wong, S. Ng, M. Shahidi (2013)
Towards understanding the contractor's response to carbon reduction policies in the construction projects
International Journal of Project Management, 31
S. Arendt, Malte Brettel (2010)
Understanding the influence of corporate social responsibility on corporate identity, image, and firm performance
Management Decision, 48
(2015)
Are Corporate Carbon Management Practices Reducing Corporate Carbon Emissions?
Enrique Bonsón, Melinda Ratkai (2013)
A set of metrics to assess stakeholder engagement and social legitimacy on a corporate Facebook page
Online Inf. Rev., 37
Itziar Castelló, M. Etter, Finn Nielsen (2016)
Strategies of Legitimacy Through Social Media: The Networked Strategy
POL: Social Responsibility Practices (Topic)
Mohamed Omran, D. Ramdhony (2015)
Theoretical Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: A Critical Review
International Journal of Accounting and Financial Reporting, 5
Andrea Liesen, F. Figge, Andreas Hoepner, Dennis Patten (2017)
Climate Change and Asset Prices: Are Corporate Carbon Disclosure and Performance Priced Appropriately?
Corporate Governance: Disclosure
V. Dragomir (2012)
The disclosure of industrial greenhouse gas emissions: a critical assessment of corporate sustainability reports
Journal of Cleaner Production, 29
Jordi Surroca, Josep Tribó (2008)
Managerial Entrenchment and Corporate Social Performance
Corporate Finance: Governance
M. Etter, E. Colleoni, Laura Illia, Katia Meggiorin, Antonino d’Eugenio (2018)
Measuring Organizational Legitimacy in Social Media: Assessing Citizens’ Judgments With Sentiment Analysis
Business & Society, 57
Lin Liao, L. Luo, Qingliang Tang (2015)
Gender Diversity, Board Independence, Environmental Committee and Greenhouse Gas Disclosure
Corporate Governance: Disclosure
D. Wahyuni, J. Ratnatunga (2015)
Carbon strategies and management practices in an uncertain carbonomic environment – lessons learned from the coal-face
Journal of Cleaner Production, 96
W. Qian, S. Schaltegger (2017)
Revisiting carbon disclosure and performance: Legitimacy and management views
British Accounting Review, 49
(2010)
Resource dependence theory: Past and future
Katrin Hummel, Christian Schlick (2016)
The Relationship between Sustainability Performance and Sustainability Disclosure – Reconciling Voluntary Disclosure Theory and Legitimacy Theory
SRPN: Triple Bottom Line (Topic)
David Deephouse, Suzanne Carter (2005)
An Examination of Differences between Organizational Legitimacy and Organizational Reputation
Organizational Behavior
Dennis Schoeneborn, Hannah Trittin (2013)
Transcending Transmission: Towards a Constitutive Perspective on CSR Communication
SRPN: Advertising & Communication Issues (Topic)
B. Jaggi, Alessandra Allini, Riccardo Macchioni, Annamaria Zampella (2017)
Do investors find carbon information useful? Evidence from Italian firms
Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 50
M. Etter (2013)
Reasons for low levels of interactivity: (Non-) interactive CSR communication in twitter
Public Relations Review, 39
Thereza Aguiar (2018)
Turning accounting for emissions rights inside out as well as upside down
, 36
F. Ascui, H. Lovell (2012)
Carbon accounting and the construction of competence
Journal of Cleaner Production, 36
Enrique Bonsón, Francisco Flores-Muñoz (2011)
Social media and corporate dialog: the response of the global financial institutions
Online Inf. Rev., 35
J. Bebbington, C. Larrinaga‐González (2008)
Carbon Trading: Accounting and Reporting Issues
European Accounting Review, 17
J. Kalu, A. Buang, G. Aliagha (2016)
Determinants of voluntary carbon disclosure in the corporate real estate sector of Malaysia.
Journal of environmental management, 182
K. Stechemesser, Edeltraud Guenther (2012)
Carbon accounting: a systematic literature review
Journal of Cleaner Production, 36
C. Meyer (1934)
The Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Columbia Law Review, 34
Somaiya Yunus, E. Elijido-Ten, S. Abhayawansa (2016)
Determinants of carbon management strategy adoption: Evidence from Australia’s top 200 publicly listed firms
Managerial Auditing Journal, 31
Christian Ott, Frank Schiemann, Thomas Günther (2017)
Disentangling the determinants of the response and the publication decisions: The case of the Carbon Disclosure Project
Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 36
Sabrina Engert, R. Baumgartner (2016)
Corporate sustainability strategy – bridging the gap between formulation and implementation
Journal of Cleaner Production, 113
Enrique Bonsón, E. Carvajal-Trujillo, Tomas Escobar-Rodriguez (2015)
Corporate Facebook and stakeholder engagement
Kybernetes, 44
Samuel Tang, D. Demeritt (2018)
Climate Change and Mandatory Carbon Reporting: Impacts on Business Process and Performance
Business Strategy and The Environment, 27
Thomas Lyon, A. Montgomery (2013)
Tweetjacked: The Impact of Social Media on Corporate Greenwash
Journal of Business Ethics, 118
Philipp Bachmann, Diana Ingenhoff (2016)
Legitimacy through CSR disclosures? The advantage outweighs the disadvantages
Public Relations Review, 42
Yanni Yu, Yongrok Choi (2016)
Stakeholder pressure and CSR adoption: The mediating role of organizational culture for Chinese companies
The Social Science Journal, 53
(2017)
Exxon to Provide Details on Climate-Change Impact to Its Business
Krishna Udayasankar (2008)
Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Size
Journal of Business Ethics, 83
Florence Depoers, Thomas Jeanjean, Tiphaine Jérôme (2016)
Voluntary Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Contrasting the Carbon Disclosure Project and Corporate Reports
Journal of Business Ethics, 134
Giovanna Michelon, Silvia Pilonato, Federica Ricceri (2015)
CSR reporting practices and the quality of disclosure: An empirical analysis
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 33
Seunghyun Kim, Y. Koh, Jaemin Cha, Seoki Lee (2015)
Effects of social media on firm value for U.S. restaurant companies
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 49
S. Hay (2016)
Placing a Value on Internal Carbon Prices: Exploring Influencing Factors through a Mixed Methods Approach
Federico Galán-Valdivieso, E. Villar-Rubio, M. Huete-Morales (2018)
The erratic behaviour of the EU ETS on the path towards consolidation and price stability
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 18
F. Gasbarro, Fabio Iraldo, T. Daddi (2017)
The drivers of multinational enterprises' climate change strategies: A quantitative study on climate-related risks and opportunities
Journal of Cleaner Production, 160
B. Wade, P. Dargusch, A. Griffiths (2014)
Defining Best Practice Carbon Management in an Australian context
Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 21
O. Boiral, Jean-François Henri, D. Talbot (2012)
Modeling the Impacts of Corporate Commitment on Climate Change
Business Strategy and The Environment, 21
María Gálvez-Rodríguez, Laura Saraite, Juana Alonso-Cañadas, María Caba-Pérez (2017)
Stakeholder Engagement via Social Media in the Hospitality Sector: The Evidence from BRIC Countries
Peter Clarkson, Yue Li, Matt Pinnuck, G. Richardson (2014)
The Valuation Relevance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the European Union Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme
European Accounting Review, 24
C. Villiers, Vic Naiker, C. Staden (2011)
The Effect of Board Characteristics on Firm Environmental Performance
Journal of Management, 37
Bree Devin, A. Lane (2014)
Communicating Engagement in Corporate Social Responsibility: A Meta-Level Construal of Engagement
Journal of Public Relations Research, 26
Andrea Liesen, Andreas Hoepner, Dennis Patten, F. Figge (2015)
Does stakeholder pressure influence corporate GHG emissions reporting? Empirical evidence from Europe
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28
M. Etter (2014)
Broadcasting, reacting, engaging – three strategies for CSR communication in Twitter
Journal of Communication Management, 18
Christian Blanco, Felipe Caro, C. Corbett (2017)
An inside perspective on carbon disclosure
Business Horizons, 60
Moonhee Cho, T. Schweickart, A. Haase (2014)
Public engagement with nonprofit organizations on Facebook
Public Relations Review, 40
J. Fuente, Isabel‐María García‐Sánchez, M. Lozano (2017)
The role of the board of directors in the adoption of GRI guidelines for the disclosure of CSR information
Journal of Cleaner Production, 141
Rory Sullivan, A. Gouldson (2012)
Does voluntary carbon reporting meet investors' needs?
Journal of Cleaner Production, 36
E. Penz, Pia Polsa (2018)
How do companies reduce their carbon footprint and how do they communicate these measures to stakeholders?
Journal of Cleaner Production
R. Wagner, Peter Seele (2017)
Uncommitted Deliberation? Discussing Regulatory Gaps by Comparing GRI 3.1 to GRI 4.0 in a Political CSR Perspective
Journal of Business Ethics, 146
A. Bimha, G. Nhamo (2017)
Sustainable Development, Share Price and Carbon Disclosure Interactions: Evidence From South Africa's JSE 100 Companies
Sustainable Development, 25
C. Krishnamurti, Eswaran Velayutham (2017)
The influence of board committee structures on voluntary disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions: Australian evidence
Pacific-Basin Finance Journal
Enrique Bonsón, M. Bednárová, Tomas Escobar-Rodriguez (2014)
Corporate YouTube practices of Eurozone companies
Online Inf. Rev., 38
E. Colleoni (2013)
CSR communication strategies for organizational legitimacy in social media
Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18
I. Eleftheriadis, Evgenia Anagnostopoulou (2017)
Measuring the level of corporate commitment regarding climate change strategies
International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 9
P. Griffin, D. Lont, Estelle Sun (2012)
The Relevance to Investors of Greenhouse Gas Emission Disclosures
Capital Markets: Market Efficiency eJournal
E. Matsumura, Rachna Prakash, Sandra Vera-Muñoz (2014)
Firm-Value Effects of Carbon Emissions and Carbon Disclosures
Accounting review: A quarterly journal of the American Accounting Association, 89
Yue Li, Peter Clarkson, G. Richardson, Florin Vasvari (2006)
Revisiting the Relation between Environmental Performance and Environmental Disclosure: An Empirical Analysis
Econometrics eJournal
Matthias Damert, Arijit Paul, R. Baumgartner (2017)
Exploring the determinants and long-term performance outcomes of corporate carbon strategies
Journal of Cleaner Production, 160
(2016)
Embedding a Carbon Price into Business Strategy
Chaminda Wijethilake (2017)
Proactive sustainability strategy and corporate sustainability performance: The mediating effect of sustainability control systems.
Journal of environmental management, 196
O. Meixner, Elisabeth Pollhammer, R. Haas (2015)
The communication of CSR activities via social media A qualitative approach to identify opportunities and challenges for small and medium-sized enterprises in the agri-food sector
Douglas Diamond, Robert Verrecchia (1991)
Disclosure, Liquidity, and the Cost of Capital
Journal of Finance, 46
I. Álvarez, Ivo Quina-Custodio (2016)
Disclosure of corporate social responsibility information and explanatory factors
Online Inf. Rev., 40
Su‐Yol Lee (2012)
Corporate Carbon Strategies in Responding to Climate Change
Business Strategy and The Environment, 21
Belen Fernandez‐Feijoo, Silvia Romero, Silvia Ruíz (2014)
Effect of Stakeholders’ Pressure on Transparency of Sustainability Reports within the GRI Framework
Journal of Business Ethics, 122
(2014)
A Theoretical Framework for CSR Practices: Integrating Legitimacy Theory, Stakeholder Theory and Institutional Theory
World Resources Institute Historical GHG Emissions
Edeltraud Guenther, Thomas Guenther, Frank Schiemann, Gabriel Weber (2016)
Stakeholder Relevance for Reporting
Business & Society, 55
Grigoris Giannarakis (2014)
The determinants influencing the extent of CSR disclosure
International Journal of Law and Management, 56
Helena Ranängen, Åsa Lindman (2018)
Exploring corporate social responsibility practice versus stakeholder interests in Nordic mining
Journal of Cleaner Production
Charles Cho, Ronald Guidry, Amy Hageman, Dennis Patten (2012)
Do actions speak louder than words? An empirical investigation of corporate environmental reputation
Accounting Organizations and Society, 37
B. Jaggi, Alessandra Allini, Riccardo Macchioni, C. Zagaria (2018)
The Factors Motivating Voluntary Disclosure of Carbon Information: Evidence Based on Italian Listed Companies
Organization & Environment, 31
Mark Suchman (1995)
Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches
Academy of Management Review, 20
Giorgos Papagiannakis, Irini Voudouris, S. Lioukas (2013)
The Road to Sustainability: Exploring the Process of Corporate Environmental Strategy Over Time
Corporate Governance: Social Responsibility & Social Impact eJournal
V. Dutot, E. Gálvez, David Versailles (2016)
CSR communications strategies through social media and influence on e-reputation
Management Decision, 54
Anne Reilly, Katherine Hynan (2014)
Corporate communication, sustainability, and social media: It's not easy (really) being green
Business Horizons, 57
Y. Qiu, Amama Shaukat, R. Tharyan (2016)
Environmental and Social Disclosures: Link with Corporate Financial Performance
British Accounting Review, 48
Georg Weinhofer, V. Hoffmann (2008)
Mitigating climate change – how do corporate strategies differ?
Business Strategy and The Environment, 19
K. Basu, G. Palazzo (2008)
Corporate Social Responsibility: A Process Model of Sensemaking
SRPN: Other CSR & Management Practice (Topic)
G. Palazzo, A. Scherer (2006)
Corporate Legitimacy as Deliberation: A Communicative Framework
Journal of Business Ethics, 66
David Sprengel, T. Busch (2010)
Stakeholder engagement and environmental strategy – the case of climate change
Business Strategy and The Environment, 20
H. Jeswani, W. Wehrmeyer, Y. Mulugetta (2008)
How warm is the corporate responses to climate change? Evidence from Pakistan and the UK
Business Strategy and The Environment, 17
Su‐Yol Lee, Y. Park, R. Klassen (2015)
Market Responses to Firms' Voluntary Climate Change Information Disclosure and Carbon Communication
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22
A. Kolk, David Levy (2001)
Winds of Change:: Corporate Strategy, Climate change and Oil Multinationals
International Journal of Modern Physics C
Soo-Hyun Lee, Su‐Yol Lee (2018)
An Analysis of the Effects of Climate Change Policy, Stakeholder Pressure, and Corporate Carbon Management on Carbon Efficiency on the Korean Petrochemical Industry
Sustainability
Anne Nielsen, Christa Thomsen (2018)
Reviewing corporate social responsibility communication: a legitimacy perspective
Corporate Communications: An International Journal
I. Lock, Peter Seele (2016)
CSR governance and departmental organization: a typology of best practices
Corporate Governance, 16
S. Schaltegger, M. Csutora (2012)
Carbon accounting for sustainability and management. Status quo and challenges
Journal of Cleaner Production, 36
Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal Carbon Disclosures: Comparability, the Carbon Disclosure Project Carbon Disclosures: Comparability, the Carbon Disclosure Project and the Greenhouse Gas Protocol and the Greenhouse Gas Protoco
I. Lock, Peter Seele (2016)
The credibility of CSR (corporate social responsibility) reports in Europe. Evidence from a quantitative content analysis in 11 countries
Journal of Cleaner Production, 122
Binh Bui, C. Villiers, C. Villiers (2017)
Carbon emissions management control systems: Field study evidence
Journal of Cleaner Production, 166
Arturo Rosario, Alejandro Martín, M. Pérez (2016)
The Use of Facebook to Promote Engagement with Local Governments in Spain
Giacomo Manetti, M. Bellucci, L. Bagnoli (2017)
Stakeholder Engagement and Public Information Through Social Media: A Study of Canadian and American Public Transportation Agencies
The American Review of Public Administration, 47
P. Griffin, Yuan Sun (2013)
Going green: Market reaction to CSRwire news releases
Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 32
P. Wong, Jason Zapantis (2013)
Driving carbon reduction strategies adoption in the Australian construction sector – The moderating role of organizational culture
Building and Environment, 66
Faizul Haque (2017)
The Effects of Board Characteristics and Sustainable Compensation Policy on Carbon Performance of UK Firms
Econometric Modeling: Corporate Finance & Governance eJournal
Martin Eppler, J. Mengis (2004)
The Concept of Information Overload: A Review of Literature from Organization Science, Accounting, Marketing, MIS, and Related Disciplines
The Information Society, 20
Celeste Black (2013)
Accounting for Carbon Emission Allowances in the European Union: In Search of Consistency
Accounting in Europe, 10
Jean-Philippe Vergne (2010)
Toward a New Measure of Organizational Legitimacy: Method, Validation, and Illustration
Organizational Research Methods, 14
N. Bocken, J. Allwood (2012)
Strategies to reduce the carbon footprint of consumer goods by influencing stakeholders
Journal of Cleaner Production, 35
P. Curșeu, S. Schruijer (2017)
Stakeholder diversity and the comprehensiveness of sustainability decisions: the role of collaboration and conflict
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 28
Yoon‐Joo Lee, Hye Yoon, Nicole O’Donnell (2018)
The effects of information cues on perceived legitimacy of companies that promote corporate social responsibility initiatives on social networking sites
Journal of Business Research, 83
Enrique Bonsón, S. Royo, Melinda Ratkai (2017)
Facebook Practices in Western European Municipalities
Administration & Society, 49
The SEC Revisits Sustainability : Will Sustainability Reporting Become Mandatory for Publicly - Traded U . S . Corporations ?
Subrata Chakrabarty, Liang Wang (2013)
Climate Change Mitigation and Internationalization: The Competitiveness of Multinational Corporations
Political Economy - Development: Environment eJournal
D. Broadstock, A. Collins, L. Hunt, K. Vergos (2017)
Voluntary disclosure, greenhouse gas emissions and business performance: assessing the first decade of reporting
British Accounting Review, 50
L. Luo, Qingliang Tang (2014)
Does voluntary carbon disclosure reflect underlying carbon performance
Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics, 10

Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Copyright: © 1996-2019 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated
ISSN: 2071-1050
DOI: 10.3390/su11041161
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

sustainability Article Do Corporate Carbon Policies Enhance Legitimacy? A Social Media Perspective Federico Galán-Valdivieso , Laura Saraite-Sariene, Juana Alonso-Cañadas and María del Carmen Caba-Pérez * Mediterranean Research Center of Economy and Sustainable Development (CIMEDES), Department of Economics and Business, University of Almería, Ctra. Sacramento s/n, La Cañada de San Urbano, 04120 Almería, Spain; [email protected] (F.G.-V.); [email protected] (L.S.-S.); [email protected] (J.A.-C.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +34-950-015-857; Fax: +34-646-007-282 Received: 14 December 2018; Accepted: 11 February 2019; Published: 22 February 2019 Abstract: Stakeholders are increasingly concerned about climate change and companies’ commitment to anticipate future carbon-related risks, and grant or withdraw support depending on their perceptions of ﬁrms’ carbon performance. The aim of this research is to analyse which carbon-related factors inﬂuence stakeholders with regards to the legitimacy-granting process. The sample in this study includes 146 ﬁrms from North America and Europe committed to carbon mitigation, whose legitimacy is measured via social media interactions. Findings show that setting a corporate carbon policy and disclosing an internal price of carbon are positively linked to legitimacy, while other factors are negatively or not related to legitimacy. This study makes theoretical contributions, proposing a metric based on social media stakeholder engagement to measure corporate legitimacy, as well as practical implications, revealing which carbon information shapes stakeholders’ perception of ﬁrms’ climate performance, and opening new possibilities for future research. Keywords: corporate carbon policy; carbon management; stakeholder engagement; Carbon Disclosure Project; Facebook; corporate legitimacy 1. Introduction The ambitious target of keeping the global temperature rise well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, settled in the 2015 Paris Agreement [1], requires carbon and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to be drastically reduced. In order to meet this target, ﬁrms need to set a corporate carbon policy (CCP) and also embed it into the global strategy [2]. Stakeholders are increasingly interested in how ﬁrms deal with these changes [3], the efforts made in fulﬁlling carbon-reducing goals, and how these are embedded into their business models, strategies and practices [4]. By disclosing this information, companies signal their commitment to a greener future and in turn gain social approval, i.e., legitimacy. For instance, ExxonMobil reported its intention to provide shareholders with information on “energy demand sensitivities, implications of two degree Celsius scenarios, and positioning for a lower-carbon future” [5]. As a result, ﬁrms recognize the need to set a mutually beneﬁcial interaction with stakeholders [6], meeting their carbon-related demands to gain their approval and, consequently, reach higher levels of legitimacy. Previous research have explored the effects of establishing a CCP through different sustainability performance measurements [7,8], while others conﬁrm the relevance of carbon information disclosure: some works explore the impact of carbon disclosure on stock prices [9–12], others ﬁnd a signiﬁcant relationship between carbon disclosure and a wide range of ﬁrm performance metrics [13], while others conclude that there exists a positive relationship between carbon disclosure and subsequent carbon performance [14,15]. Board characteristics and their effects on carbon disclosure are also Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161; doi:10.3390/su11041161 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 2 of 23 examined in the literature [16], as well as the main determinants and motivations of participating in Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) annual surveys [17,18]. Thus, the literature proves that both setting a CCP and disclosing carbon-related information exerts a positive inﬂuence, measured by ﬁnancial and non-ﬁnancial metrics, dwelling on the ﬁnal effects for ﬁrms. However, there is a scarcity of works linking carbon issues and how they shape the stakeholders’ perspective and, ultimately, if this perception enhances corporate legitimacy. Prior research regularly mentions legitimacy as a desired consequence of establishing a CCP and disclosing related information, but as far as the authors are aware, there is a gap in the literature exploring this link. Using carbon and economic information from 146 European and North American ﬁrms included in the CDP report (2016), the ﬁrst aim of this study is to analyse to what extent establishing a CCP helps to reach higher levels of legitimacy. The measurement of legitimacy is one of the most controversial points in the literature. Since conventional measures of legitimacy (i.e., direct surveys and interviews, or traditional media) do not take into account the judgements of all types of stakeholders, a recent branch literature has been focusing on social media as an alternative measure for legitimacy [19], to capture the heterogeneous perception of a ﬁrm’s groups of interest. The rise of social media has provided stakeholders a set of platforms to express their views about which ﬁrms have gained social approval, and ﬁrms need to be aware of this shift [20]. Thus, the second aim of this study is to propose a new measure for legitimacy based on social media data. Legitimacy is here proxied by social media stakeholder engagement, a construct that encompasses a set of interactions that users can carry out on Facebook, one of the most important social networks world-wide. From a theoretical perspective, the results can contribute to extending the literature on corporate legitimacy and its measurement, proposing a new approach based on social media stakeholder engagement. The added value to the existent research lies on the ability of this metric to capture the online interactions of a plurality of stakeholders, overcoming the limitations of traditional metrics. Practitioners can also beneﬁt from this research, since ﬁndings help to understand how CCPs and the disclosure of related information can improve interaction with stakeholders, and therefore, help them to reach higher levels of legitimacy. Following the introduction, the rest of the article is organized as follows: Section 2 offers the theoretical background, Section 3 presents the hypotheses of the research, Section 4 speciﬁes the proposed model and provides information on the sample, in Section 5 results are commented and further discussed, and ﬁnally in Section 6 conclusions and ﬁnal recommendations are provided. 2. Theoretical Framework From a theoretical perspective, researchers ground corporate social responsibility (CSR) and carbon-related studies in some well-known economic theories, such as voluntary disclosure theory, institutional theory, or stakeholder theory [21,22], but no consensus exists since each theory presents subtle differences and is aligned more or less according to the researcher ’s focus, and even these theories overlap or can be reconciled [23]. Firms engage in sustainable initiatives mostly because of stakeholder pressure [24], and disseminate their sustainability performance in search of social approval, i.e., to gain legitimacy. Thus, legitimacy theory underpins this research. Under its precepts, corporate legitimacy is based on how ﬁrms seek social acceptance by adhering to regulative, normative or cognitive norms and expectations [25], and reach such legitimacy by disclosing information as a response to the expectations and pressures of society as a whole [26]. This habitually translates into communicating “non-ﬁnancial” data for “non-ﬁnancial” stakeholders, implying that CSR information disclosure is key to the legitimation process [23,27]. Following Suchman [28] and Basu and Pallazo [29], ﬁrms can adopt three different approaches: (1) pragmatic legitimacy, that is, considering legitimacy as a resource that can be managed (ﬁrms inﬂuence the environment by posturing that they are sustainable); (2) cognitive legitimacy, arising from the adaptation of ﬁrms to societal expectations (ﬁrms adapt to the environment, fostering consistency between global strategy and CSR activities); and (3) moral legitimacy, shaped by uncertainty conditions in which ﬁrms, together with relevant stakeholders, set Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 3 of 23 up or modify acceptable behaviours (ﬁrms are truly committed to shape the environment by engaging in CSR activities and embedding them in the corporate culture). Whichever the perspective assumed by the ﬁrms, they must ﬁrst deal with stakeholder pressure and reach legitimacy by establishing a sustainability strategy as part of the general corporate strategy, as it is not enough to merely react to changes in legislation but rather to be proactive in internalizing greener practices [30]. Once a sustainability strategy is established, ﬁrms alleviate stakeholder pressure by demonstrating their commitment through the disclosure of environmental, social and governance (ESG) information [31,32]. By doing so, ﬁrms enhance transparency [33], allowing stakeholders to grant their social support, and achieve legitimacy in the process. A dynamic equilibrium is then set, in that stakeholders continuously scrutinize actions taken and information disclosed by the ﬁrms in order to provide a social license for the businesses to keep operating [34], i.e., to keep implicitly legitimating their activities. Among the ESG factors, stakeholders are increasingly concerned with corporate carbon performance, since carbon is the GHG most frequently emitted into the atmosphere (65% of total emissions in 2014 [35]), pushing ﬁrms to enhance their commitment to reduce emissions. The process to materialize this commitment usually begins by developing and implementing a speciﬁc CCP within their corporate sustainability strategy [36,37]. A CCP can be deﬁned as a statement outlining objectives, strategies, actions and control mechanisms to address carbon management and how these are embedded into the corporate global strategy. Once a CCP is established, ﬁrms should adopt one of the strategies according to the goal established, namely carbon compensation, carbon reduction or carbon independence [38], and then set up a carbon management system (CMS) that encompasses all implementation plans and actions that allow them to meet the objectives outlined in the CCP, including how to integrate them into operational activities. Without establishing this entire mechanism, it is unlikely that a ﬁrm will be successful in managing carbon issues properly and less likely to obtain social legitimation. Thus, stakeholder pressure stands out as a key factor to enhance carbon efﬁciency and, by extension, a ﬁrm’s carbon policy [39]. Companies must consider all stakeholder groups and engage with them in the process of establishing a CCP and communicating its evolution and performance, in order to ensure its successful implementation [40,41]. In general, there is no obligation to disclose carbon-speciﬁc data, with the exception of large companies that have facilities participating in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme [42,43]. Two types of initiatives try to ﬁll this gap and help guide companies through the process of disclosure: (1) Given that no ﬁnancial reporting standards that address this type of disclosure have emerged from accountancy communities or from regulators (compromising the transparency and comparability of ﬁnancial statements, following De Aguiar [44]), practitioners and researchers are taking steps towards a theoretical and practical framework for “carbon accounting” [45–47]. This could be deﬁned as “the voluntary and/or mandatory recognition of direct and indirect GHG emissions, their evaluation in non-monetary and monetary terms as well as their auditing and reporting for internal and external purposes” [48]. (2) Firms voluntarily disclose carbon information, by participating in the CDP annual survey or providing this information in their own CSR reports [49], usually following the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Guidelines (the GRI employs terminology coupling GHG Protocol and ISO 14064 standards; the GHG Protocol is an international standard for corporate GHG accounting and reporting, founded by the World Resources Institute [50]). 3. Development of Hypotheses In order to meet ﬁnancial and non-ﬁnancial stakeholders’ expectations, ﬁrms need to disseminate all manner of climate-related information such as the disclosure of carbon emissions data, whether they are meeting their own climate change-reduction objectives and targets, how they are performing in relation to their competitors, or what are the ﬁnancial implications of climate change for the ﬁrm [51,52]. Therefore, the soundness of a CCP and its ability to engage stakeholders can be measured through a set of factors, which can be divided into four groups in line with Luo and Tang [15]: Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 4 of 23 - Carbon operations. Variables related to speciﬁc actions implemented to achieve the carbon-reduction goal: CCP, carbon reduction target, and internal carbon price. - Carbon emissions tracking. Variables related to the control of carbon performance: volume of carbon emissions and year-on-year variation in carbon emissions. - Carbon governance. Variables related to the organizational structures created to design, implement, manage and control the CCP: CSR committee. - Reporting and disclosure. Variables related to how a company can disseminate carbon-related information to stakeholders to enhance their engagement: CSR reporting. 3.1. Carbon Operations As ﬁrms engage in carbon reduction processes, the need to establish a CCP arises. A CCP encompasses a general strategy which includes all processes carried out and the measures implemented by a company to monitor, manage and reduce its carbon emissions [3]. It also includes information that facilitates the disclosure of corporate information on climate change [53], signalling to stakeholders a real commitment to reduce emissions. Previous literature conﬁrms the positive effects of establishing a CCP. Eleftheriadis and Anagnostopoulou [8] state that embedding carbon reduction and compensation strategies into core business activities can help carbon strategies to succeed; Chakrabarty and Wang [54] conclude that although CCPs do not positively affect ﬁnancial performance, neither do they harm it; Wong et al. [55] and Wong and Zapantis [56] explore the role of organizational culture in the adoption of carbon policies in the Australian construction industry. Based on the above, it is hypothesized that: Hypothesis 1 (H1). Firms with a CCP reach higher levels of corporate legitimacy. Setting speciﬁc carbon reduction targets (CRT) supports the global carbon strategy and helps to improve future emission reductions [3,7,8,57]. Luo and Tang [15] found that ﬁrms that effectively reduce carbon emissions are prone to set targets, initiate carbon programs and communicate internal information with external stakeholders, so a positive relationship between CRT and corporate legitimacy is expected. Hypothesis 2 (H2). Firms that set CRTs reach higher levels of corporate legitimacy. For ﬁrms, the question about climate change regulation is not a matter of whether they will be required to pay a price on carbon, but rather when they will be forced to do so. As companies’ proactivity become more concerned with this matter it is necessary for the cost of carbon to be embedded into the global corporate strategy. A growing number of ﬁrms are already using or starting to use this cost of carbon in their analysis of current and future projects [58] in order to ascertain that those projects remain proﬁtable in the long run whatever the environmental regulations [59]. This potential cost is commonly referred to as “internal carbon price”, and it is freely and internally determined by each company depending on its current level of CO2 emissions, its national legislation and its own perspectives regarding the inﬂuence of carbon. By disclosing such sensitive information to stakeholders, ﬁrms are signalling their commitment to anticipating future risks in relation to climate change [60], fostering transparency and, in doing so, reaching legitimacy [61]. Hence, the following hypothesis is formulated: Hypothesis 3 (H3). Firms disclosing their internal carbon price attain higher levels of corporate legitimacy. 3.2. Carbon Emissions Tracking The search for legitimacy (to avoid future risks) forces ﬁrms to be proactive in order to show their green commitment by communicating how polluting their activity is. The literature is not conclusive as to whether carbon emission ﬁgures and their disclosure are considered positive or negative by Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 5 of 23 stakeholders. Some works conclude that investors react negatively to carbon emissions [9,62], in the belief that they imply an increase in costs and climate risks and could be a mere marketing action of greenwashing. Others ﬁnd positive reactions [63] since carbon emission data is considered sensitive information, and its disclosure is associated with more transparency and a commitment to sustainability. These mixed ﬁndings are related to the limited availability of emissions data, which could lead to big misunderstandings [64]. Hence, data on carbon emissions performance is not expected to exert any inﬂuence on stakeholders since they are not homogeneously aware of the degree of compliance, stating the following research hypotheses in the null forms: Hypothesis 4 (H4). Carbon emissions volumes do not inﬂuence corporate legitimacy. Hypothesis 5 (H5). Effective reduction of carbon emissions does not inﬂuence corporate legitimacy. 3.3. Carbon Governance It has been observed that board-related variables are common in discretionary carbon disclosure studies, and speciﬁc boards, such as auditing, attract researchers’ attention [64,65]. An environmental or CSR committee is in charge of setting and implementing the carbon management strategy, and thus is expected to guarantee that “words are aligned with deeds” [66], and that the disclosed information helps stakeholders evaluate their investment risks, opportunities, and decisions [12], and consequently does not negatively affect the ﬁrm’s legitimacy and reputation [37]. In this regard, Fuente et al. [67] state that the quality of CSR depends on the activity of the CSR committee. In addition, Haque [68] found that there is a positive relationship between company carbon reduction initiatives and the existence of a CSR committee. Likewise, Lock and Seele [66] prove that almost 93% of the most sustainable companies have stand-alone CSR structures, meaning that speciﬁc resources are allocated to CSR. Therefore, stakeholders are expected to acknowledge its importance to ensure the fulﬁlment of carbon reduction targets. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed: Hypothesis 6 (H6). Firms that designate a speciﬁc CSR committee attain higher levels of corporate legitimacy. 3.4. Reporting and Disclosure Legitimacy is closely related to the successful implementation of CSR activities in organizations [69]. The traditional way to communicate ESG issues has evolved from information included in annual reports to an increasingly widespread practice of stand-alone CSR annual reports [70]. A ﬁrm is expected to gain legitimacy (or regain it if some critical event has damaged its image) by extensively disclosing CSR information [27], since it fosters the perception of transparency. Hence, it is expected that stakeholders rely on information provided in CSR reports, posing the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 7 (H7). Firms that publish a CSR report attain higher levels of corporate legitimacy. 4. Research Design 4.1. Methodology Palazzo and Scherer [71] assert that the challenge of legitimacy is to engage in true dialogue in a plural and globalizing society. According to Vergne [72], legitimacy is difﬁcult to measure due to its inherently changing nature in space and time, the different perspectives potentially assumable (pragmatic, moral or cognitive), and the different dimensions that integrate the construct (environmental, competitive, accountability and transactional legitimacy). Most works rely on metrics based on traditional media or direct stakeholder perceptions, but a new stream of research is using legitimacy measures based on social media data [73], which “[ . . . ] has the potential to complement Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 6 of 23 extant measures and contribute to a more encompassing understanding of legitimacy based on the judgments by various evaluators” [19]. However, little has been said of how legitimacy can be measured through social media, with researchers mainly focusing on Twitter-based metrics [74,75]. Recent research uses the number of followers or fans as a measure of legitimacy [76], but a more elaborate metric is needed to encompass the broad set of manifestations permitted in social networks. The current study proposes a different approach based on Facebook data. Facebook, with 2320 billion users per quarter (as of January 2019, according to the metrics of Statista), is considered one of the most popular platforms for online interaction [77] and allows different types of interactions through three simple buttons: “Like”, “Comment” and “Share” [78]. The metric proposed by Bonsón and Ratkai [79] is used to measure social media stakeholder engagement [80]. This metric is developed from the three main interactions allowed by Facebook, representing what companies can attain from users: popularity (“likes”), commitment (“comments”) and virality (“shares”). The dimensions and the ﬁnal metric of corporate legitimacy are presented in Table 1. Table 1. Metrics for corporate legitimacy. Sign Formula Measurement P1 Posts with likes / total posts Percentage of total posts liked Popularity P2 Total likes / total posts Average number of likes per post P3 (P2 / number of fans) 1000 Popularity of messages among fans C1 Posts with comments / total posts Percentage of total commented posts Commitment C2 Total comments / total posts Average number of comments per post C3 (C2 / number of fans) 1000 Commitment of fans V1 Posts with shares / total posts Percentage of the total posts shared Virality V2 Total shares / total posts Average number of shares per post V3 (V2 / number of fans) 1000 Virality of messages among fans Legitimacy (L) = Popularity (P3) + Commitment (C3) + Virality (V3) Source: adapted from Bonsón and Ratkai [80]. All posts published by ﬁrms in their Facebook proﬁle pages were considered to build the metrics. The main motive for this is that literature has corroborated that less than 20% of messages posted by companies on their Facebook or Twitter proﬁle pages could be linked to CSR activities [81,82], and that “ . . . publics have a greater tendency to engage with non-CSR messages than CSR messages” [81]. In other words, publics liked, shared, and commented more on non-CSR messages. Although it seems of interest and logical to focus solely on CSR-related posts, that analysis does not ﬁt with this work since it is focused on corporate legitimacy as a whole, that is to say, the social acceptance of all the economic activities of a ﬁrm. In accordance with the research goal, the dependent variable selected was “Legitimacy”. Assuming that the variables considered present a linear relationship, and using ordinary least squares (OLS), multiple linear regression was applied to determine the inﬂuence of factors identiﬁed as being relevant to the level of stakeholder engagement via Facebook fan-pages. Table 2 shows the measurement and codiﬁcation of independent variables: three carbon operation variables (CCP, carbon reduction target, and internal carbon price), two carbon emissions tracking variables (volume of carbon emissions and year-on-year variation in carbon emissions), one carbon governance variable (CSR committee) and one reporting and disclosure variable (CSR reporting). Table 2 also includes two control variables. Firstly, economic and environmental performance are common variables included in sustainability research, with Tobin’s Q probably being the most used to predict long-term ﬁnancial performance [13,15,26]. Although it does not appear extensively in the literature, ﬁnancial performance has been related both positively [83], and negatively [16] to legitimacy via social media. Broadly speaking, most stakeholders, with the exception of investors, Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 7 of 23 assume that higher economic proﬁtability is conversely related to sustainability performance [84] and thus stakeholders tend to believe that higher levels of proﬁtability imply worse environmental performance. In this work, therefore, a negative relationship is expected between ﬁnancial performance and stakeholder legitimacy. Table 2. Independent variables. Expected Group Hypothesis Name Variable Measurement Relationship 0—Firm does not report having a carbon reduction policy H1 Corporate carbon policy Policy Positive 1—Firm reports having a carbon reduction policy 0—Firm does not report having a Carbon operations carbon reduction target H2 Carbon reduction target Target Positive 1—Firm reports having a carbon reduction target 0—Firm does not report an internal carbon price H3 Internal carbon price ICP Positive 1—Firm reports an internal carbon price H4 Total carbon emissions (2016) Emissions Tons of CO No effect Carbon emissions tracking Variation in carbon emissions Total carbon emissions (2016) H5 DEmissions 1 No effect Total carbon emissions (2015) 2015–2016 0—Firm does not have a CSR Corporate social responsibility Carbon governance H6 Committee committee Positive (CSR) committee 1—Firm has a CSR committee 0—Firm does not publish a separate CSR or sustainability report Reporting and disclosure H7 Report on CSR or sustainability Report Positive 1—Firm publishes a separate CSR or sustainability report (Market value common shares + Control variable Tobin’s Q Proﬁtability Value preferred stocks + ST Debt + Negative LT Debt) / Total Assets. Natural logarithm of a company Control variable Size Size Negative total assets in USD Source: Thomson Reuters Eikon database, except carbon operations variables (2016 CDP report). Firm size is also a critical aspect habitually mentioned in the literature and is commonly used to help explain social, economic and environmental practices [85,86]. Many studies prove a positive relationship between size and CSR disclosure, since larger organizations present higher levels of emissions and consequently are more likely to disclose carbon information [87,88]. However, larger companies are more visible, subject to greater pressure and exposed to more intense public scrutiny [89]. This could lead to a greater likelihood of ﬁrms falsifying CSR information, modifying said information in order to appear more “attractive” to stakeholders [29,90]. Firms would otherwise risk disappointing stakeholders for failing to meet carbon mitigation goals, and thus making it difﬁcult to reach legitimacy. Hence, a negative link is expected between company size and corporate legitimacy. Another two variables commonly used in the related literature were initially considered in the analysis: industry [88,91] and country [32,92]. However, a previous correlation analysis proved that these two variables were found to be irrelevant and were therefore discarded from the study. The ﬁnal model is as follows: Engagement = b + b ICP + b Policy + b Target + b Emissions + b i 0 1 i 2 i 3 i 4 i 5 DEmissions + b Committee + b Re port + b (1) i 6 i 7 i 8 Pro f itability + b Size + # i 9 i i 4.2. Sample Selection and Data Collection As carbon-related data disclosure is mostly voluntary, the search for companies started by considering those that show a strong commitment to anticipating future climate-change related risks, i.e., those participating in carbon disclosure initiatives. Because of its size and public availability, Carbon Disclosure Project initiatives have become one of the main sources of climate change Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 8 of 23 information from many of the world’s largest ﬁrms [93]. In addition, it is one of the few initiatives to interview senior managers to ascertain their opinions, actions and prospects on carbon issues. Furthermore, and by adhering to this initiative, companies signal their commitment to addressing carbon issues. Therefore, and in line with many other authors [10,11,94], the initial sample of 517 ﬁrms was collected from the 2016 CDP report. The report also classiﬁes ﬁrms at an industrial and regional level, including Africa (21) Asia (122), Europe (214), Latin America (26), North America (111) and Oceania (23). Region is a noticeable variable since the different degrees of technology development, regulations or cultural context may inﬂuence the importance that ﬁrms place on environmental issues [95,96]. Therefore, for the sake of greater homogeneity [97] and given their similarities in those aspects and also in the degree of carbon awareness, only ﬁrms from North America and Europe were initially considered. Stakeholder engagement is thought to be the most important indicator for corporate legitimacy [98]. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to suggest that legitimacy could be proxied through social media stakeholder engagement, which could be deﬁned as the degree of involvement that stakeholders manifest towards a company via social networks. The current study relies on Facebook data to capture the online interactions of stakeholders as a representative of such engagement. Based on the companies initially selected, researchers checked the existence and visited the ofﬁcial and active Facebook proﬁle page of each company. Those without a proﬁle page or one that was inactive were removed, reducing the sample to 223 companies. Following this, data from the Facebook proﬁle pages was extracted on a daily basis and then aggregated. Given the large amount of data, a proper computerized treatment was deemed necessary and the principles of big data management were applied. Data gathering and aggregation were performed using speciﬁc software which was developed ad-hoc for this research. The extraction module retrieves public data available from Facebook pages through queries based on M language of Power Query to the API Graph of Facebook. Firms without information of carbon emissions were removed, ﬁnally totalling 146 companies (94 European and 52 North American). Table 3 describes sample selection and Table 4 exhibit sector information. Firms in the sample are shown in Appendix A. Table 3. Sample selection. Sample Selection (from CDP Report 2016) Europe North America Firms based in Europe and North America 214 111 Less ﬁrms without an active Facebook page (93) (35) Less ﬁrms not disclosing carbon emissions information (27) (24) Final sample (N = 146) 94 52 Table 4. Sector statistics. GICS Sector Europe North America Total Consumer Discretionary 15 3 18 Consumer Staples 6 4 10 Energy 8 10 18 Financials 14 4 18 Health Care 2 1 3 Industrials 12 10 22 Information Technology 2 3 5 Materials 12 6 18 Telecom. Services 4 1 5 Utilities 19 10 29 Total 94 52 146 Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 9 of 23 4.3. Descriptive Analysis Table 5 exhibits the main statistics for the independent variables, grouped according to their region of belonging. It is worth noting that, on average, European ﬁrms in the sample report emitting less CO (11,403,001 tons) than North American (15,289,462), although being bigger in terms of size (total assets in billion $). Consequently, US and Canadian companies have a slightly higher carbon reduction rate (3% vs. 1%). Firms from both regions present similar ﬁgures in terms of setting a CCP, having a stand-alone CSR report and a CSR committee, but Europeans declare setting carbon mitigation targets and using an internal carbon price more frequently. Table 5. Mean and standard deviation of independent variables (N = 146). Europe (N = 95) North America (N = 51) Total (N = 146) Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Policy 0.11 0.31 0.10 0.30 0.10 0.305 Target 0.40 0.49 0.25 0.44 0.35 0.478 ICP 0.49 0.50 0.27 0.45 0.42 0.495 Emissions (Tons of CO ) 11,403,001.34 23,333,333.76 15,289,462.35 25,897,905.40 12,760,600.73 24,242,183.14 DEmissions 0.01 0.25 0.03 0.16 0.02 0.22 Committee 0.93 0.263 0.86 0.348 0.90 0.295 Report 0.99 0.103 0.92 0.272 0.97 0.182 Proﬁtability 1.69 1.88 0.66 0.16 1.33 1.59 Size (billion $) 233.37 606.79 123.81 293.99 146.61 348.08 Table 6 shows the online corporate legitimacy data. For the year 2016, 29,772 posts from 43,883,907 fans were analysed. Of note and of outstanding relevance are the number of “likes”, 15,957,315, which proved to be the most used interaction among the main options available in Facebook. This was much greater than the 812,772 comments and 2,805,527 sharing actions. [79] metrics display some interesting additional information. Almost 100% of the postings (96.63%) have been accepted (liked) by Facebook users (P1). To a lesser extent, 78.98% of all postings were disseminated through the action of sharing (V1), and only 64% of posts received a comment (C1). When calculating the metrics (Table 7), the previous hierarchy persists: greater interaction takes place through “Likes” (P2), 25,549 per post, followed by “Shares” (V2), 3,928 per post approximately, and ﬁnally “Comments” (C2), 619 per posting. Along the same line, if the number of fans (P3, C3, V3) is taken into account, popularity is still by far the most important dimension. Legitimacy (L), measured by simply adding the value of the last three metrics, determines the level of interaction reached by a ﬁrm with its fans. Most ﬁrms receive a valuation lower than 20, with an average of 7.18465, meaning that popularity makes up 72% of the total score. The absolute data reﬂects the same feature observed in the metrics: the predominance of simplicity (likes are preferred over shares, and shares over comments), since it is faster and easier to send a “like” or to share a post than to comment on it [79,99,100], and thus it is the preferred option for showing some level of engagement with the ﬁrm. Having selected ﬁrms from only two regions and using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test to conﬁrm normality assumption, popularity, commitment and virality were further analysed using the t-Student test to see if there were further differences. Means of all the metrics for North American ﬁrms are not signiﬁcantly different from those in Europe at p = 0.05 or better using a one-tailed student t-test, which allows the researchers to jointly analyse the legitimacy of all ﬁrms considered in the sample. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 10 of 23 Table 6. Corporate actions, audience and interactions on Facebook (N = 146). Total Min Max Mean Standard Dev. Number of Posts 29,772 1 584 203.92 156.228 Number of Fans 43,883,907 68 5,782,940 300,574.71 783,384.632 Number of Likes 15,957,315 3 4,292,266 109,296.68 395,814.723 Number of Shares 2,805,527 2 659,867 19,215.94 68,885.707 Number of Comments 812,772 0 104,048 5,565.02 14,440.834 Table 7. Corporate metrics of popularity, commitment, virality and legitimacy (N = 146). Metric Min Max Mean Standard Dev. P1 0.21752 1.00000 0.96629 0.11398 Popularity P2 0.36253 25,549.20238 520.15631 2,177.22837 P3 0.20875 64.705882 5.25588 8.20156 C1 0.01208 1.00000 0.63696 0.31357 C2 0.00000 619.333333 29.51013 81.29586 Commitment C3 0.00000 9.66562 0.36034 1.13932 V1 0.01812 1.00000 0.78981 0.22172 Virality V2 0.01812 3,927.77976 88.78613 351.92247 V3 0.02155 52.94117 1.56842 6.17198 Legitimacy L 0.27698 121.56862 7.18465 14.23548 4.4. Correlation Analysis A Pearson correlation matrix was completed to explore possible multicollinearity between the exogenous factors (Table 8). It also shows preliminary and surprising results for the dependent variable: four factors, namely carbon reduction target, CSR committee, CSR report and ﬁrm size exhibit negative and signiﬁcant relationships with legitimacy. This test also reveals signiﬁcant correlations between predictors. CCPs are positively correlated with CRT, the existence of a CSR committee, the publication of CSR reports, and size. Another interesting point is the negative relationship arising from the variables “Target” and “DEmissions”, and the positive link between Target, CSR committee and CSR report. Although signiﬁcant, all correlations do not affect the robustness of the model proposed, as seen in the variance inﬂation factors (VIF) shown in further Table 8. Table 8. Correlation matrix (N = 146). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Legitimacy (1) 1 Policy (2) 0.001 1 Target (3) 0.218 *** 0.304 *** 1 ICP (4) 0.080 0.025 0.061 1 Emissions (5) 0.069 0.076 0.021 0.104 1 DEmissions (6) 0.020 0.025 0.149 * 0.025 0.116 1 Committee (7) 0.189 ** 0.281 *** 0.204 ** 0.040 0.045 0.001 1 Report (8) 0.316 *** 0.238 *** 0.201 ** 0.007 0.096 0.038 0.194 ** 1 0.468 Proﬁtability (9) 0.042 0.002 0.121 0.173** 0.127 0.097 0.063 1 *** Size (10) 0.199** 0.193 ** 0.110 0.170** 0.294 *** 0.079 0.254 ** 0.108 0.258 *** 1 Note: signiﬁcant at p < 0.01 ***; p < 0.05 **; p < 0.1 *. Correlation analysis shows that CCPs are positively related to the existence of a CSR committee, conﬁrming ﬁndings from previous research that ﬁrms that engage in sustainability strategies tend to appoint speciﬁc structures within the company to implement and control the global carbon strategy [37]. Related to this, CCP is also linked to size, implying that larger ﬁrms are more willing to establish a CCP and allocate speciﬁc resources to fulﬁl their carbon mitigation goals [101] and undertake a wider set of initiatives [38,57]. CCPs are also positively correlated with CRT and the publication of CSR Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 11 of 23 reports, conﬁrming the ﬁndings of [8] signifying that ﬁrms committed to decreasing carbon emissions adopt the full set of minimum requirements to control the fulﬁlment of the established strategy and goals. Correlation results contradict the ﬁndings of Eleftheriadis and Anagnostopoulou [102], who do not detect an impact of emissions management practices on emissions performance. The variables Target, CSR committee and CSR report are positively linked with each other, so perhaps CSR committees take all necessary measures to control the environmental issues and disclosure information on its performance, even though stakeholders may not perceive this. In summary, the results show a tendency for stakeholders to consider some data and dismiss others. Those mixed results could be due to: (1) the complexity of carbon-related data; (2) the diversity and heterogeneity of stakeholders; (3) the lack of mandatory guidelines; and (4) ﬁrm inconsistency. 5. Results and Discussion According to the multiple regression analysis (Table 9), the explanatory ability of the model results in a moderate adjustment (21.1%) with six of the proposed variables making signiﬁcant contributions. Companies using an internal carbon price and disclosing its value (H3), within a CCP framework (H1), gain more support from their stakeholders via social media, since this signals a commitment to anticipate climate-related future risks and to foster transparency [32,96]. Table 9. Regression results (N = 146). Unstand. Coefﬁcients Std. Error t VIF (Constant) 59.937 16.982 3.529 *** Policy 19.511 8.418 2.318 ** 1.221 Target 6.477 3.031 2.137 ** 1.185 ICP 3.941 2.302 1.712 * 1.103 Emissions 1.288E-8 0.000 0.271 1.127 DEmissions 4.234 5.600 0.756 1.323 Committee 5.869 3.984 1.473 1.178 Report 21.097 6.294 3.352 *** 1.121 Proﬁtability 1.530 0.827 1.850 * 1.477 Size 1.667 0.683 2.440 ** 1.307 R-squared 0.211 Durbin–Watson 1.914 Signiﬁcant at: p < 0.01 ***; p < 0.05 **; p < 0.1 *. Mixed results derive from the regression analysis. Most factors exhibit a signiﬁcant relationship with legitimacy, with the exception of the emission-related variables (as hypothesized in H4 and H5) and the CSR committee (thus rejecting H6). Two factors exhibit negative links, namely carbon reduction targets and CSR reports, leading to a rejection of H2 and H7. As expected, the existence of a CCP (H1) and the disclosure of the internal carbon price (H3) exert a positive inﬂuence on legitimacy. Establishing a CCP is perhaps the main clue that a company is truly committed to sustainability, incorporating environmental practices into its internal processes and even its organizational culture [55]. Having a CCP implies that there exists at least some degree of coordination and that the initiatives performed effectively to contribute to the carbon mitigation goals. For this reason, stakeholders consider that a CCP creates value in sustainability terms (H1). In fact, stakeholder perception of corporate carbon mitigation efforts depends on the perceived utility of sustainable investments and their integration into the business strategy [103]. However, it seems that for stakeholders, it is not the existence of a CCP that is of utmost importance, but rather the lack of a CCP that sends a signal that the ﬁrm does not care about climate issues or risks and this in turn compromises future corporate performance [51]. The link between legitimacy and carbon price is also positive and signiﬁcant (H3), meaning that disclosing the use of an internal price of carbon has a positive effect on legitimacy. This information Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 12 of 23 could be considered both sensitive and innovative. In the process of anticipating future climate risks, ﬁrms estimate the cost of their carbon emissions, assuming that in the future they will presumably face outﬂows of money in the form of taxes or carbon allowances to compensate for the pollution emitted [104,105]. Furthermore, only ﬁrms engaged in CDP have disclosed the use of an internal carbon price, so by publishing this exclusive data, ﬁrms are signalling to stakeholders their commitment to anticipate future climate-related risks, and thus attaining higher levels of social media engagement. According to the results, setting a CRT exerts a negative inﬂuence on stakeholders (H2) who will then withdraw social media support. Although results show that CCPs are positively correlated with CRT (that is, a CCP usually involves setting speciﬁc carbon mitigation targets), it is difﬁcult for some groups of stakeholders to discern whether such targets are realistic or the degree of compliance reached. As stated by Papagiannakis et al. [103], the mere introduction of CRT is not enough for the heterogeneous groups of stakeholders to grant their support. Interestingly, a negative relationship arises from the variables “Target” and “DEmissions”, so those companies prone to setting a numerical objective of carbon reduction have a greater chance of achieving their goals [106]. As hypothesized, neither carbon emissions volumes (H4) nor their decrease from the previous year (H5) exhibit any relationship with legitimacy. One possible reason is that to conﬁrm that targets are met stakeholders would need to look at the previous year ’s data and check if the accomplishment has been achieved. Such a level of effort does not seem worth their while in order to grant or withdraw their social media support, and contrary to Reilly and Hynan [107], legitimacy is not affected. Another explanation involves the volume of carbon emissions: ﬁrms with higher levels of GHG emissions tend to not promote such information since it can damage their reputation and stock market valuation, but the damage caused increases if such information is not disclosed [62,107]. Hence, there is an incentive to disguise carbon ﬁgures, and stakeholders are aware of the risk that the disclosed ﬁgures may not truly reﬂect the carbon performance of companies. In fact, the most polluting companies are always under scrutiny, and disclosing and disseminating positive environmental results arouses suspicion and the risk of being labelled as “greenwashers” [108]. The diversity of stakeholders is another possible motive. While some groups (mainly investors) perceive carbon emission disclosure as informationally valuable [109], others consider such information as incomplete [110], too complex or symptomatic of potential costs not fully addressed [9], and thus react negatively. Having a CSR committee, another sign of true commitment to sustainability, is surprisingly not signiﬁcant (H6). A stand-alone sustainability board is thought to “be in a better position to address environmental issues from the perspective of opportunities and commitments to stakeholders” [12], but according to the results of this study, stakeholders fail to recognize its relevance. Similarly, publishing CSR reports does not enhance legitimacy (H7), rather the contrary. While they are currently an acceptable way to disseminate such data, CSR reports are not exempt from criticism for many reasons: (1) no consensus exists on what standards or metrics should be used, and a growing number of organizations try to ﬁll this gap, such as the GRI [111]; (2) sustainability reporting provides ﬁrm-biased, low-quality information, and therefore lacks credibility [92]; (3) they are aimed at a few stakeholders, mainly ﬁnancial analysts and NGOs, which intensively analyse the information provided to grant or withdraw support [112]. Standardized reporting is particularly useful for ﬁnancial stakeholders but could be puzzling or meaningless for non-ﬁnancial not specialized stakeholders, such as clients. So, stakeholders search for other sources of information with the potential to depict the actual behaviour of the company, not only regarding sustainability but with regard the whole behaviour of the ﬁrm. Another possible explanation is that, as ﬁrms increasingly present sustainability reports, this stops being a distinctive competitive advantage, and the added value of the information disclosed remains only for those stakeholders who have the knowledge to draw conclusions from these reports, so stakeholders participate more with those more social media-active ﬁrms. Furthermore, stakeholders legitimate ﬁrms not only for the quantitative information disclosure, but also for the initiatives, actions and outcomes of such initiatives that ﬁrms publicize in social media, which it is perceived as a signal of environmental commitment. If companies only rely on disclosing (mandatory or not) quantitative Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 13 of 23 structured data to show their advances in carbon mitigation, it may signal to stakeholders that such companies are only concerned about looking “green” rather than being sustainable [113,114]. 6. Conclusions, Limitations and Suggestions Stakeholders are increasingly worried about how companies face climate risks by setting carbon mitigation policies and how these policies are embedded into the corporate sustainability and global strategy. In fact, regulatory and stakeholder pressure, and not economic reasons, have been identiﬁed as the main drivers forcing companies to integrate sustainability into their global strategy [24,115]. Stakeholders must be aware of corporate activities to manage carbon issues properly, as it is one of the many sources of information for conceding legitimacy. Under the threat of losing legitimacy, ﬁrms react by engaging in sustainable initiatives and disclosing their environmental performance. This research takes carbon and sustainability information from the CDP 2016 report on European and North American participants to analyse how such data contribute to create corporate legitimacy. The results are summarized as follows. First, holding a CCP and disclosing an internal carbon price are signiﬁcantly and positively linked to legitimacy. These factors are critical in anticipating future carbon-linked issues, and signal to stakeholders a ﬁrm’s real commitment not only with carbon mitigation, but also with the long-term viability of the company [8,60,61]. Second, the relationship between setting a target and having a CSR report with legitimacy is signiﬁcant and negative, that is, stakeholders perceive such factors as a mere way to “look green”. Companies are tempted to misuse carbon information to promote a greener image [32] and reach legitimacy, rather than engaging in costly sustainability initiatives [115], especially if they are bad environmental performers [14] or their legitimacy is threatened [17,116]. Third, data on emissions and having a CSR are factors not related to legitimacy [62,63], which can be explained by the diversity of needs, expectations and access to information of stakeholders [117], the different relevance of some data varies from one group to another [118], or the inherent biases exhibited by stakeholders, which lead them to ﬁlter or skim relevant information [119,120]. Summing up, the match between what the company says and does is truly relevant. Stakeholders try to distinguish between a mere sustainable posture based on smoke and mirrors and a true commitment to sustainability, which in turn enhances or damages corporate legitimacy [28,29]. Researchers and practitioners may ﬁnd useful the ﬁndings of this study. From the theoretical point of view, it contributes to extend the literature on legitimacy theory, and allows researchers to move forward with regard to the inﬂuence of CCP and that of the dissemination of carbon information on stakeholders’ decisions to grant or withdraw corporate legitimacy. It also provides a new approximation to measure legitimacy, considering a new stream of research that focuses on the beneﬁts of using social media engagement. For practitioners, effective management of social media is essential to achieve higher levels of legitimacy. Identifying which data exerts a greater inﬂuence on stakeholders is key to improving legitimacy. It is also important that ﬁrms reciprocate and show commitment to their stakeholders, improving their interaction with users and responding quickly to their comments, thus enhancing the corporate image and reputation and, in doing so, reaching legitimacy. However, two major issues are emerging that challenge legitimacy, impeding that the CSR data disseminated through social media is of equal use to all stakeholders. First, companies disseminate CSR information in an unstructured way, hindering the necessary homogeneity to compare data from different sources. Secondly, as the Securities and Exchange Commission [121] pointed out, social media can take the form of different platforms, so companies should advise stakeholders that relevant information is being disseminated via new channels and make them aware of important disclosures, such as registering or subscribing. This research is not exempt from limitations that could lead to improvements of this work. First, the sample is based on respondents of the CDP annual survey, which is enlarged in terms of the number of participants with every version. However, other initiatives (even analyses of CSR reports) could be considered to extend the research. Second, in order to guarantee homogeneity, the study Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 14 of 23 has been limited exclusively to companies headquartered in Europe, the United States and Canada. Nonetheless, other regions are included in the CDP annual survey, so this work could be extended to include these. A third limitation is the dummy nature of most of the external variables, being necessary to incorporate more continuous variables and external cutting. Fourth, and regarding the period of study, this one-year research, although quite robust, could be extended to include a wider period to provide a greater vision of how online participation varies over time. Additionally, as stated by Meixner et al. [122], not all internal and external stakeholders are reachable via social media, and this could have represented a major bias in measuring corporate legitimacy through social media stakeholder engagement. Finally, a major limitation is that all Facebook posts have been considered to measure legitimacy, not only CSR-based posts, so we were not able to measure a speciﬁc component of legitimacy: sustainability legitimacy. Analysing only posts mentioning sustainability issues could yield interesting results. Further improvements could come from many different approaches. A deeper analysis of the relationship between establishing a CCP and the evolution of carbon-related data could be performed over several years, including the inﬂuence that meeting the goals could exert on different measures of proﬁtability. Adding new carbon variables is also proposed, as well as new proxies to corporate legitimacy. Clustering stakeholders (even getting data from other specialized social media networks such as LinkedIn), since heterogeneity is probably the main cause of the negative or non-existent impacts obtained [24], or clustering ﬁrms depending on their sustainability strategy [38] or their pollution intensity [108], would provide new opportunities to extend this research. Although industry did not prove to be a signiﬁcant variable, results could change if other regions were considered or if time-series data were part of the analysis. Previous works have examined the link between stakeholder pressure and CCP on environmental performance, so linking this perspective with that posited in this work, that is, an analysis of the complete effect of all three variables (stakeholder pressure, environmental performance and legitimacy) could provide new insights. Finally, given that CSR information disclosure is now mandatory in Europe but not in the USA and other countries, an opportunity arises to check differences in corporate legitimacy between these two different frameworks. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, editing (ﬁnal draft) and supervision, M.C.C.-P.; data collection and formal analysis, J.A.-C.; formal analysis and writing (original draft), F.G.-V. and L.S.-S. Funding: This research was funded by the Research Group “Nuevos Enfoques en Finanzas y Sistemas de Información Empresarial” (SEJ385) at the University of Almería (Spain). Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 15 of 23 Appendix A Table A1. Firms included in the study. European companies (N = 94) Company GICS Sector Country Company GICS Sector Country A2A Utilities Italy J Sainsbury Plc Consumer Staples United Kingdom Abengoa Industrials Spain JCDecaux SA Consumer Discretionary France ACCIONA S.A. Utilities Spain JD Sports Fashion Consumer Discretionary United Kingdom Air France—KLM Industrials France Kering Consumer Discretionary France AkzoNobel Materials Netherlands Kingspan Group PLC Industrials Ireland Anglo American Materials United Kingdom Koninklijke KPN NV Telecom Services Netherlands Arçelik A.S. Consumer Discretionary Turkey Lundin Petroleum Energy Sweden Atos SE Information Technology France Magyar Telekom Nyrt. Telecom Services Hungary Aviva plc Financials United Kingdom Marks and Spencer Group plc Consumer Discretionary United Kingdom Balfour Beatty Industrials United Kingdom Marshalls Materials United Kingdom Banco Popular Español S.A. Financials Spain Michelin Consumer Discretionary France Barclays Financials United Kingdom MOL Nyrt. Energy Hungary BASF SE Materials Germany Mondi PLC Materials United Kingdom BMW AG Consumer Discretionary Germany Morgan Advanced Materials Industrials United Kingdom BNP Paribas Financials France National Grid PLC Utilities United Kingdom Bouygues Industrials France Nestlé Consumer Staples Switzerland BP Energy United Kingdom Nordea Bank Financials Sweden BT Group Telecom. Services United Kingdom Novartis Health Care Switzerland CaixaBank Financials Spain Piraeus Bank Financials Greece Carlsberg Breweries A/S Consumer Staples Denmark PUMA SE Consumer Discretionary Germany Carrefour Consumer Staples France Renault Consumer Discretionary France Centrica Utilities United Kingdom Renishaw Information Technology United Kingdom Commerzbank AG Financials Germany Royal DSM Materials Netherlands Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 16 of 23 Table A1. Cont. European companies (N = 94) Credit Suisse Financials Switzerland Royal Dutch Shell Energy Netherlands Crest Nicholson PLC Consumer Discretionary United Kingdom Saint-Gobain Industrials France Danone Consumer Staples France SAS Industrials Sweden Danske Bank A/S Financials Denmark Severn Trent Utilities United Kingdom Deutsche Bank AG Financials Germany Snam S.P.A. Utilities Italy Domino’s Pizza Group plc Consumer Discretionary United Kingdom Societe Generale Financials France EDF Utilities France Solvay S.A. Materials Belgium Enagas Utilities Spain Spire Healthcare Health Care United Kingdom Endesa Utilities Spain Statoil ASA Energy Norway ENEL SpA Utilities Italy Stora Enso Oyj Materials Finland ENGIE Utilities France SUEZ Utilities France Eni SpA Energy Italy T.Garanti Bankasi A.S. Financials Turkey Ferrovial Industrials Spain Terna Utilities Italy Fortum Oyj Utilities Finland ThyssenKrupp AG Materials Germany Galp Energia SGPS SA Energy Portugal Total Energy France Gas Natural SDG SA Utilities Spain Travis Perkins Industrials United Kingdom Glencore plc Materials Switzerland Unilever plc Consumer Staples United Kingdom Groupe Eurotunnel Industrials France United Utilities Utilities United Kingdom HeidelbergCement AG Materials Germany VEOLIA Utilities France Hill & Smith Holdings Materials United Kingdom Verbund AG Utilities Austria Iberdrola SA Utilities Spain Vodafone Group Telecom Services United Kingdom Inditex Consumer Discretionary Spain Volkswagen AG Consumer Discretionary Germany Int. Cons. Airlines Group, S.A. Industrials Spain Whitbread Consumer Discretionary United Kingdom North American companies (N = 52) Company GICS Sector Country Company GICS Sector Country Adobe Systems, Inc. Information Technology United States Encana Corporation Energy Canada Aimia Inc. Consumer Discretionary Canada Eversource Energy Utilities United States Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 17 of 23 Table A1. Cont. European companies (N = 94) Air Canada Industrials Canada Exxon Mobil Corporation Energy United States Ameren Corporation Utilities United States General Electric Company Industrials United States ARC Resources Ltd. Energy Canada General Motors Company Consumer Discretionary United States Archer Daniels Midland Consumer Staples United States Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Financials United States Autodesk, Inc. Information Technology United States Hess Corporation Energy United States Bank of Montreal Financials Canada Hormel Foods Consumer Staples United States Barrick Gold Corporation Materials Canada Monsanto Company Materials United States Biogen Inc. Health Care United States NRG Energy Inc. Utilities United States BNY Mellon Financials United States Ormat Technologies Inc Utilities United States Campbell Soup Company Consumer Staples United States Owens Corning Industrials United States Canadian Natural Resources Energy Canada Parker-Hanniﬁn Corporation Industrials United States Limited Capital Power Corporation Utilities Canada PG&E Corporation Utilities United States Cenovus Energy Inc. Energy Canada Rogers Communications Inc. Telecom Services Canada Chevron Corporation Energy United States Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. Industrials United States ConocoPhillips Energy United States Suncor Energy Inc. Energy Canada Covanta Energy Corporation Industrials United States Teck Resources Limited Materials Canada Cummins Inc. Industrials United States Tennant Company Industrials United States Dean Foods Company Consumer Staples United States The Dow Chemical Company Materials United States Delta Air Lines Industrials United States TransAlta Corporation Utilities Canada DTE Energy Company Utilities United States TransCanada Corporation Energy Canada Duke Energy Corporation Utilities United States Walt Disney Company Consumer Discretionary United States E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Materials United States Waste Management, Inc. Industrials United States Company WEC Energy Group Xcel Eastman Chemical Company Materials United States Utilities United States Energy Inc. EMC Corporation Information Technology United States Wells Fargo & Company Financials United States Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 18 of 23 References 1. International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook 2016. Paris. 2016. Available online: https://www.iea. org/newsroom/news/2016/november/world-energy-outlook-2016.html (accessed on 19 December 2017). 2. Kolk, A.; Levy, D. Winds of Change: Corporate Strategy, Climate change and Oil Multinationals. Eur. Manag. J. 2001, 19, 501–509. [CrossRef] 3. Damert, M.; Paul, A.; Baumgartner, R.J. Exploring the determinants and long-term performance outcomes of corporate carbon strategies. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 160, 123–138. [CrossRef] 4. Schaltegger, S.; Csutora, M. Carbon accounting for sustainability and management. Status quo and challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 36, 1–16. [CrossRef] 5. Kerber, R.; McWilliams, G. Exxon to Provide Details on Climate-Change Impact to Its Business. Available online: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxon-mobil-climate/exxon-to-provide-details-on-climate- change-impact-to-its-business-idUSKBN1E602L (accessed on 18 December 2017). 6. Nielsen, A.E.; Thomsen, C.; Nielsen, A.E.; Thomsen, C. Reviewing corporate social responsibility communication: A legitimacy perspective. Corp. Commun.: Int. J. 2018, 23, 492–511. [CrossRef] 7. Wade, B.; Dargusch, P.; Grifﬁths, A. Deﬁning best practice carbon management in an Australian context. Australas. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 21, 52–64. [CrossRef] 8. Eleftheriadis, I.; Anagnostopoulou, E. Measuring the level of corporate commitment regarding climate change strategies. Int. J. Clim. Chang. Strateg. Manag. 2017, 9, 626–644. [CrossRef] 9. Lee, S.Y.; Park, Y.S.; Klassen, R.D. Market responses to ﬁrms’ voluntary climate change information disclosure and carbon communication. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2015, 22, 1–12. [CrossRef] 10. Bimha, A.; Nhamo, G. Sustainable Development, Share Price and Carbon Disclosure Interactions: Evidence From South Africa’s JSE 100 Companies. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 25, 400–413. [CrossRef] 11. Grifﬁn, P.A.; Lont, D.H.; Sun, E.Y. The Relevance to Investors of Greenhouse Gas Emission Disclosures. Contemp. Account. Res. 2017, 34, 1265–1297. [CrossRef] 12. Jaggi, B.; Allini, A.; Macchioni, R.; Zagaria, C. The Factors Motivating Voluntary Disclosure of Carbon Information: Evidence Based on Italian Listed Companies. Organ. Environ. 2018, 31, 178–202. [CrossRef] 13. Broadstock, D.C.; Collins, A.; Hunt, L.C.; Vergos, K. Voluntary disclosure, greenhouse gas emissions and business performance: Assessing the ﬁrst decade of reporting. Br. Account. Rev. 2018, 50, 48–59. [CrossRef] 14. Qian, W.; Schaltegger, S. Revisiting carbon disclosure and performance: Legitimacy and management views. Br. Account. Rev. 2017, 49, 365–379. [CrossRef] 15. Luo, L.; Tang, Q. Does voluntary carbon disclosure reﬂect underlying carbon performance? J. Contemp. Account. Econ. 2014, 10, 191–205. [CrossRef] 16. Liao, L.; Luo, L.; Tang, Q. Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure. Br. Account. Rev. 2015, 47, 409–424. [CrossRef] 17. Ott, C.; Schiemann, F.; Günther, T. Disentangling the determinants of the response and the publication decisions: The case of the Carbon Disclosure Project. J. Account. Public Policy 2017, 36, 14–33. [CrossRef] 18. Blanco, C.; Caro, F.; Corbett, C.J. An inside perspective on carbon disclosure. Bus. Horiz. 2017, 60, 635–646. [CrossRef] 19. Etter, M.; Colleoni, E.; Illia, L.; Meggiorin, K.; D’Eugenio, A. Measuring Organizational Legitimacy in Social Media: Assessing Citizens’ Judgments With Sentiment Analysis. Bus. Soc. 2018, 57, 60–97. [CrossRef] 20. Abitbol, A.; Lee, S.Y. Messages on CSR-dedicated Facebook pages: What works and what doesn’t. Public Relat. Rev. 2017, 43, 796–808. [CrossRef] 21. Fernando, S.; Lawrence, S. A Theoretical Framework for CSR Practices: Integrating Legitimacy Theory, Stakeholder Theory and Institutional Theory. J. Theor. Account. Res. 2014, 10, 149–178. 22. Omran, M.A.; Ramdhony, D. Theoretical Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: A Critical Review. Int. J. Account. Financ. Report. 2015, 5, 38. [CrossRef] 23. Hummel, K.; Schlick, C. The relationship between sustainability performance and sustainability disclosure—Reconciling voluntary disclosure theory and legitimacy theory. J. Account. Public Policy 2016, 35, 455–476. [CrossRef] 24. Sprengel, D.; Busch, T. Stakeholder Engagement and Environmental Strategy—The Case of Climate Change. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2011, 20, 351–364. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 19 of 23 25. Deephouse, D.L.; Carter, S. An Examination of Differences Between Organizational Legitimacy and Organizational Reputation*. J. Manag. Stud. 2005, 42, 329–360. [CrossRef] 26. Clarkson, P.M.; Li, Y.; Richardson, G.D.; Vasvari, F.P. Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Account. Organ. Soc. 2008, 33, 303–327. [CrossRef] 27. Bachmann, P.; Ingenhoff, D. Legitimacy through CSR disclosures? The advantage outweighs the disadvantages. Public Relat. Rev. 2016, 42, 386–394. [CrossRef] 28. Suchman, M. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 571–610. [CrossRef] 29. Basu, K.; Palazzo, G. Corporate social responsibility: A process model of sensemaking. Acad. Manag. Rev. (Amr) 2008, 33, 122–136. [CrossRef] 30. Wijethilake, C. Proactive sustainability strategy and corporate sustainability performance: The mediating effect of sustainability control systems. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 196, 569–582. [CrossRef] 31. Yu, Y.; Choi, Y. Stakeholder pressure and CSR adoption: The mediating role of organizational culture for Chinese companies. Soc. Sci. J. 2016, 53, 226–235. [CrossRef] 32. Liesen, A.; Hoepner, A.G.; Patten, D.M.; Figge, F. Does stakeholder pressure inﬂuence corporate GHG emissions reporting? Empirical evidence from Europe. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2015, 28, 1047–1074. [CrossRef] 33. Fernandez-Feijoo, B.; Romero, S.; Ruiz, S. Effect of Stakeholders’ Pressure on Transparency of Sustainability Reports within the GRI Framework. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 122, 53–63. [CrossRef] 34. Ranängen, H.; Lindman, Å. Exploring corporate social responsibility practice versus stakeholder interests in Nordic mining. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 19, 3204–3208. [CrossRef] 35. World Resources Institute Historical GHG Emissions. Available online: https://www.climatewatchdata. org/ghg-emissions (accessed on 21 February 2018). 36. Engert, S.; Baumgartner, R.J. Corporate sustainability strategy—Bridging the gap between formulation and implementation. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 113, 822–834. [CrossRef] 37. Yunus, S.; Elijido-Ten, E.; Abhayawansa, S. Determinants of carbon management strategy adoption. Manag. Audit. J. 2016, 31, 156–179. [CrossRef] 38. Weinhofer, G.; Hoffmann, V.H. Mitigating Climate Change—How Do Corporate Strategies Differ? Bus. Strategy Environ. Bus. Strat. Env. 2010, 19, 77–89. [CrossRef] 39. Lee, S.; Lee, S. An Analysis of the Effects of Climate Change Policy, Stakeholder Pressure, and Corporate Carbon Management on Carbon Efﬁciency on the Korean Petrochemical Industry. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4420. [CrossRef] 40. Bocken, N.M.P.; Allwood, J.M. Strategies to reduce the carbon footprint of consumer goods by inﬂuencing stakeholders. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 35, 118–129. [CrossRef] 41. Jeswani, H.K.; Wehrmeyer, W.; Mulugetta, Y. How warm is the corporate response to climate change? Evidence from Pakistan and the UK. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2008, 17, 46–60. [CrossRef] 42. Liesen, A.; Figge, F.; Hoepner, A.; Patten, D.M. Climate Change and Asset Prices: Are Corporate Carbon Disclosure and Performance Priced Appropriately? J. Bus. Financ. Account. 2017, 44, 35–62. [CrossRef] 43. Tang, S.; Demeritt, D. Climate Change and Mandatory Carbon Reporting: Impacts on Business Process and Performance. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2018, 27, 437–455. [CrossRef] 44. De Aguiar, T.R. Turning accounting for emissions rights inside out as well as upside down. Environ. Plan. C Politics Space 2017, 36, 139–159. [CrossRef] 45. Ascui, F.; Lovell, H. Carbon accounting and the construction of competence. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 36, 48–59. [CrossRef] 46. Bebbington, J.; Larrinaga-González, C. Carbon trading: Accounting and reporting issues. Eur. Account. Rev. 2008, 17, 697–717. [CrossRef] 47. Black, C.M. Accounting for Carbon Emission Allowances in the European Union: In Search of Consistency. Account. Eur. 2013, 10, 223–239. [CrossRef] 48. Stechemesser, K.; Guenther, E. Carbon accounting: A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 36, 17–38. [CrossRef] 49. Depoers, F.; Jeanjean, T.; Jérôme, T. Voluntary Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Contrasting the Carbon Disclosure Project and Corporate Reports. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 134, 445–461. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 20 of 23 50. Dragomir, V.D. The disclosure of industrial greenhouse gas emissions: A critical assessment of corporate sustainability reports. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 29–30, 222–237. [CrossRef] 51. Sullivan, R.; Gouldson, A. Does voluntary carbon reporting meet investors’ needs? J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 36, 60–67. [CrossRef] 52. Guenther, E.; Guenther, T.; Schiemann, F.; Weber, G. Stakeholder Relevance for Reporting: Explanatory Factors of Carbon Disclosure. Bus. Soc. 2016, 55, 361–397. [CrossRef] 53. Wahyuni, D.; Ratnatunga, J. Carbon strategies and management practices in an uncertain carbonomic environment e lessons learned from the coal-face. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 96, 397–406. [CrossRef] 54. Chakrabarty, S.; Wang, L. Climate Change Mitigation and Internationalization: The Competitiveness of Multinational Corporations. Thunderbird Int. Bus. Rev. 2013, 55, 673–688. [CrossRef] 55. Wong, P.S.P.; Ng, S.T.T.; Shahidi, M. Towards understanding the contractor ’s response to carbon reduction policies in the construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2013, 31, 1042–1056. [CrossRef] 56. Wong, P.S.P.; Zapantis, J. Driving carbon reduction strategies adoption in the Australian construction sector – The moderating role of organizational culture. Build. Environ. 2013, 66, 120–130. [CrossRef] 57. Lee, S.Y. Corporate climate change strategies in responding to climate change. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2012, 21, 33–48. [CrossRef] 58. Dhavale, D.G.; Sarkis, J. Stochastic internal rate of return on investments in sustainable assets generating carbon credits. Comput. Oper. Res. 2017, 89, 324–336. [CrossRef] 59. CDP. Embedding a Carbon Price into Business Strategy. 2016. Available online: https: //6fefcbb86e61af1b2fc4-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/ documents/000/001/132/original/CDP_Carbon_Price_report_2016.pdf?1474899276 (accessed on 20 January 2017). 60. Andrew, J.; Cortese, C. Carbon Disclosures: Comparability, the Carbon Disclosure Project and the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. Aust. Account. Bus. Financ. J. 2011, 5, 6–18. 61. Kalu, J.U.; Buang, A.; Aliagha, G.U. Determinants of voluntary carbon disclosure in the corporate real estate sector of Malaysia. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 182, 519–524. [CrossRef] 62. Matsumura, E.M.; Prakash, R.; Vera-Muñoz, S.C. Firm-Value Effects of Carbon Emissions and Carbon Disclosures. Account. Rev. 2013, 89, 695–724. [CrossRef] 63. Grifﬁn, P.A.; Sun, Y. Going green: Market reaction to CSRwire news releases. J. Account. Public Policy 2013, 32, 93–113. [CrossRef] 64. Krishnamurti, C.; Velayutham, E. The inﬂuence of board committee structures on voluntary disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions: Australian evidence. Pac. -Basin Financ. J. 2017, 50, 65–81. [CrossRef] 65. de Villiers, C.; Naiker, V.; van Staden, C.J. The effect of board characteristics on ﬁrm environmental performance. J. Manag. 2011, 37, 1636–1663. [CrossRef] 66. Lock, I.; Seele, P. CSR governance and departmental organization: A typology of best practices. Corp. Gov. Int. J. Bus. Soc. 2016, 16, 211–230. [CrossRef] 67. Fuente, J.A.; García-Sánchez, I.M.; Lozano, M.B. The role of the board of directors in the adoption of GRI guidelines for the disclosure of CSR information. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 141, 737–750. [CrossRef] 68. Haque, F. The effects of board characteristics and sustainable compensation policy on carbon performance of UK ﬁrms. Br. Account. Rev. 2017, 49, 347–364. [CrossRef] 69. Devin, B.L.; Lane, A.B. Communicating Engagement in Corporate Social Responsibility: A Meta-Level Construal of Engagement. J. Public Relat. Res. 2014, 26, 436–454. [CrossRef] 70. Michelon, G.; Pilonato, S.; Ricceri, F. CSR reporting practices and the quality of disclosure: An empirical analysis. Crit. Perspect. Account. 2015, 33, 59–78. [CrossRef] 71. Palazzo, G.; Scherer, A.G. Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. J. Bus. Ethics 2006, 66, 71–88. [CrossRef] 72. Vergne, J. Toward a new measure of organizational legitimacy: Method, validation, and illustration. Organ. Res. Methods 2011, 14, 484–502. [CrossRef] 73. Colleoni, E. CSR communication strategies for organizational legitimacy in social media. Corp. Commun. 2013, 18, 228–248. [CrossRef] 74. Etter, M. Broadcasting, reacting, engaging – three strategies for CSR communication in Twitter. J. Commun. Manag. 2014, 18, 322–342. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 21 of 23 75. Castelló, I.; Etter, M.; Årup Nielsen, F. Strategies of Legitimacy Through Social Media: The Networked Strategy. J. Manag. Stud. 2016, 53, 402–432. [CrossRef] 76. Lee, Y.J.; Yoon, H.J.; O’Donnell, N.H. The effects of information cues on perceived legitimacy of companies that promote corporate social responsibility initiatives on social networking sites. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 83, 202–214. [CrossRef] 77. Manetti, G.; Bellucci, M.; Bagnoli, L. Stakeholder Engagement and Public Information Through Social Media: A Study of Canadian and American Public Transportation Agencies. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 2016, 47, 991–1009. [CrossRef] 78. Cho, M.; Schweickart, T.; Haase, A. Public engagement with nonproﬁt organizations on Facebook. Public Relat. Rev. 2014, 40, 565–567. [CrossRef] 79. Bonsón, E.; Ratkai, M. A set of metrics to assess stakeholder engagement and social legitimacy on a corporate Facebook page. Online Inf. Rev. 2013, 37, 787–803. [CrossRef] 80. Bonsón Ponte, E.; Carvajal-Trujillo, E.; Escobar-Rodríguez, T. Corporate Facebook and stakeholder engagement. Kybernetes 2015, 44, 771–787. [CrossRef] 81. Cho, M.; Furey, L.D.; Mohr, T. Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility on Social Media. Bus. Prof. Commun. Q. 2017, 80, 52–69. [CrossRef] 82. Etter, M. Reasons for low levels of interactivity. Public Relat. Rev. 2013, 39, 606–608. [CrossRef] 83. Kim, S.; Koh, Y.; Cha, J.; Lee, S. Effects of social media on ﬁrm value for U.S. restaurant companies. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 49, 40–46. [CrossRef] 84. Qiu, Y.; Shaukat, A.; Tharyan, R. Environmental and social disclosures: Link with corporate ﬁnancial performance. Br. Account. Rev. 2016, 48, 102–116. [CrossRef] 85. Surroca, J.; Tribó, J.A. Managerial Entrenchment and Corporate Social Performance. J. Bus. Financ. Account. 2008, 35, 748–789. [CrossRef] 86. Davis, G.F.; Cobb, J.A. Resource dependence theory: Past and future. In Stanford’s Organization Theory Renaissance, 1970–2000 (Research in the Sociology of Organizations); Schoonhoven, C.B., Dobbin, F., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2010; Volume 28, pp. 21–42. 87. Gallego-Álvarez, I.; Quina-Custodio, I.A. Disclosure of corporate social responsibility information and explanatory factors. Online Inf. Rev. 2016, 40, 218–238. [CrossRef] 88. Giannarakis, G. The determinants inﬂuencing the extent of CSR disclosure. Int. J. Law Manag. 2014, 56, 393–416. [CrossRef] 89. Lu, Y.; Abeysekera, I. Stakeholders’ power, corporate characteristics, and social and environmental disclosure: Evidence from China. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 64, 426–436. [CrossRef] 90. Melloni, G.; Caglio, A.; Perego, P. Saying more with less? Disclosure conciseness, completeness and balance in Integrated Reports. J. Account. Public Policy 2017, 36, 220–238. [CrossRef] 91. Sashi, C.M. Customer engagement, buyer-seller relationships, and social media. Manag. Decis. 2012, 50, 253–272. [CrossRef] 92. Lock, I.; Seele, P. The credibility of CSR (corporate social responsibility) reports in Europe. Evidence from a quantitative content analysis in 11 countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 122, 186–200. [CrossRef] 93. Gasbarro, F.; Iraldo, F.; Daddi, T. The drivers of multinational enterprises’ climate change strategies: A quantitative study on climate-related risks and opportunities. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 160, 8–26. [CrossRef] 94. Hay, S.E. Placing a Value on Internal Carbon Prices. Master Thesis, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, 2016. Available online: https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/52191/Thesis---ﬁnal---SARAH-HAY- --2-.pdf?sequence=5 (accessed on 10 May 2017). 95. Bonsón, E.; Flores, F. Social media and corporate dialogue: The response of global ﬁnancial institutions. Online Inf. Rev. 2011, 35, 34–49. [CrossRef] 96. De Rosario, A.H.; Martín, A.S.; Pérez, M.D.C.C. The Use of Facebook to Promote Engagement with Local Governments in Spain BT. In Social Media and Local Governments: Theory and Practice; Sobaci, M.Z., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 219–241, ISBN 978-3-319-17722-9. 97. Bonsón, E.; Bednarova, M.; Escobar-Rodríguez, T. Corporate YouTube practices of Eurozone companies. Online Inf. Rev. 2014, 38, 484–501. [CrossRef] 98. Wagner, R.; Seele, P. Uncommitted Deliberation? Discussing Regulatory Gaps by Comparing GRI 3.1 to GRI 4.0 in a Political CSR Perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 146, 333–351. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 22 of 23 99. Bonsón, E.; Royo, S.; Ratkai, M. Facebook Practices in Western European Municipalities: An Empirical Analysis of Activity and Citizens’ Engagement. Adm. Soc. 2014, 49, 320–347. [CrossRef] 100. del Mar Gálvez-Rodríguez, M.; Saraite, L.; Alonso-Cañadas, J.; del Carmen Caba-Pérez, M. Stakeholder Engagement via Social Media in the Hospitality Sector. In Opportunities and Challenges for Tourism and Hospitality in the BRIC Nations; Dhiman, M., Ed.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2016; Volume i, pp. 15–30, ISBN 9781522516866. 101. Udayasankar, K. Corporate social responsibility and ﬁrm size. J. Bus. Ethics 2008, 83, 167–175. [CrossRef] 102. Doda, B.; Gennaioli, C.; Gouldson, A.; Grover, D.; Sullivan, R. Are Corporate Carbon Management Practices Reducing Corporate Carbon Emissions? Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2016, 23, 257–270. [CrossRef] 103. Papagiannakis, G.; Voudouris, I.; Lioukas, S. The Road to Sustainability: Exploring the Process of Corporate Environmental Strategy Over Time. Bus. Strat. Env. 2013, 23, 254–271. [CrossRef] 104. Villar-Rubio, E.; Huete-Morales, M.D. Market Instruments for a Sustainable Economy: Environmental Fiscal Policy and Manifest Divergences. Rev. Policy Res. 2017, 34, 255–269. [CrossRef] 105. Galán-Valdivieso, F.; Villar-Rubio, E.; Huete-Morales, M.D. The erratic behaviour of the EU ETS on the path towards consolidation and price stability. Int. Environ. Agreem. Politics Law Econ. 2018, 18, 689–706. 106. Bui, B.; de Villiers, C. Carbon emissions management control systems: Field study evidence. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 166, 1283–1294. [CrossRef] 107. Reilly, A.H.; Hynan, K.A. Corporate communication, sustainability, and social media: It’s not easy (really) being green. Bus. Horiz. 2014, 57, 747–758. [CrossRef] 108. Lyon, T.P.; Montgomery, A.W. Tweetjacked: The Impact of Social Media on Corporate Greenwash. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 118, 747–757. [CrossRef] 109. Jaggi, B.; Allini, A.; Macchioni, R. Do investors ﬁnd carbon information useful? Evidence from Italian ﬁrms. Rev. Quant. Financ. Account. 2018, 50, 1031–1056. [CrossRef] 110. Clarkson, P.M.; Li, Y.; Pinnuck, M.; Richardson, G. The Valuation Relevance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the European Union Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme. Eur. Account. Rev. 2015, 24, 551–580. [CrossRef] 111. Merrill, C. The SEC Revisits Sustainability: Will Sustainability Reporting Become Mandatory for Publicly-Traded U.S. Corporations? Available online: https://www.tmtindustryinsider.com/2016/10/ the-sec-revisits-sustainability-will-sustainability-reporting-become-mandatory-for-publicly-traded-u-s- corporations/ (accessed on 28 June 2018). 112. Diamond, D.W.; Verrecchia, R.E. Disclosure, Liquidity, and the Cost of Capital. J. Financ. 1991, 46, 1325–1359. [CrossRef] 113. Schoeneborn, D.; Trittin, H. Transcending transmission: Towards a constitutive perspective on CSR communication. Corp. Commun. Int. J. 2013, 18, 193–211. [CrossRef] 114. Arendt, S.; Brettel, M. Understanding the inﬂuence of corporate social responsibility on corporate identity, image, and ﬁrm performance. Manag. Decis. 2010, 48, 1469–1492. [CrossRef] 115. Boiral, O.; Henri, J.F.; Talbot, D. Modeling the Impacts of Corporate Commitment on Climate Change. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2012, 21, 495–516. [CrossRef] 116. Cho, C.H.; Guidry, R.P.; Hageman, A.M.; Patten, D.M. Do actions speak louder than words? An empirical investigation of corporate environmental reputation. Account. Organ. Soc. 2012, 37, 14–25. [CrossRef] 117. Curseu, P.L.; Schruijer, S.G. Stakeholder diversity and the comprehensiveness of sustainability decisions: The role of collaboration and conﬂict. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017, 28, 114–120. [CrossRef] 118. Penz, E.; Polsa, P. How do companies reduce their carbon footprint and how do they communicate these measures to stakeholders? J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 195, 1125–1138. [CrossRef] 119. Eppler, M.J.; Mengis, J. The concept of information overload: A review of literature from organization science, accounting, marketing, MIS, and related disciplines. Inf. Soc. 2004, 20, 325–344. [CrossRef] 120. Dutot, V.; Lacalle Galvez, E.; Versailles, D.W. CSR communications strategies through social media and inﬂuence on e-reputation. Manag. Decis. 2016, 54, 363–389. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2019, 11, 1161 23 of 23 121. Securities and Exchange Commission Report of Investigation Pursuant to Section 21(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Available online: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/34-69279.pdf (accessed on 2 April 2013). 122. Meixner, O.; Pollhammer, E.; Haas, R. The communication of CSR activities via social media. A qualitative approach to identify opportunities and challenges for small and medium-sized enterprises in the agri-food sector. In Proceedings of the International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria, 9–13 February 2015; pp. 56–69. © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Journal

Sustainability – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Published: Feb 22, 2019

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Do Corporate Carbon Policies Enhance Legitimacy? A Social Media Perspective

Do Corporate Carbon Policies Enhance Legitimacy? A Social Media Perspective

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Do Corporate Carbon Policies Enhance Legitimacy? A Social Media Perspective

Do Corporate Carbon Policies Enhance Legitimacy? A Social Media Perspective

References (121)

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies