Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ HAL AMUarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
HAL AMU
Other literature type
Data sources: HAL AMU
versions View all 5 versions
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

Divulgations environnementales : quel référentiel pour quelles fins ?

Authors: Allirol, Béatrice; Dumontier, Pascal;

Divulgations environnementales : quel référentiel pour quelles fins ?

Abstract

Référence internationale en matière de reporting extra financier le GRI s’adresse à tous les partenaires de l’entreprise. Les investisseurs sont toutefois les destinataires privilégiés du reporting environnemental, surtout si l’entreprise est cotée. Les scores de divulgation environnementale de 120 entreprises européennes nous permettent de déterminer comment les entreprises cotées répondent aux prescriptions du GRI qui reflètent les attentes de l’ensemble des parties prenantes de l’entreprise et à celles de l’EFFAS qui reflètent les attentes des seuls investisseurs. Nos résultats montrent que les déterminants des scores de divulgation GRI différent des déterminants des scores EFFAS au sens où seuls les scores GRI sont sensibles à l’exposition environnementale de l’entreprise. Les scores EFFAS dépendent quant à eux de la pression des investisseurs. Il apparaît donc que les divulgations environnementales répondent à une logique de légitimité environnementale lorsque la pression des investisseurs est faible. Elles visent prioritairement à satisfaire les investisseurs dans le cas contraire.

GRI offers an international reference to firm’s stakeholders interested in social and environmental disclosures. However these disclosures target first and foremost investors, especially for listed firms. The environmental disclosure scores of 120 randomly selected European companies help us determine how their disclosures capture environmental information useful to all stakeholders (GRI scores) or to investors only (EFFAS scores). Our results show that GRI scores are to a large extent driven by the firm’s exposure to environmental risks. In contrast, EFFAS scores are driven by shareholding dispersion and, therefore, pressures exerted by investors. This suggests that environmental disclosures respond to a logic of environmental legitimacy when investors’ pressure is weak. Otherwise they aim to satisfy investors’ expectations.

Country
France
Keywords

légitimité environnementale, GRI, environmental legitimacy, words: environmental disclosures, EFFAS, investisseurs, investors, [SHS.GESTION]Humanities and Social Sciences/Business administration, environmental disclosures,investors,GRI,EFFAS,environmental legitimacy,divulgations environnementales,investisseurs,légitimité environnementale [words], [SHS.GESTION] Humanities and Social Sciences/Business administration, divulgations environnementales

34 references, page 1 of 4

Aerts, W., Cormier, D. (2009). « Media legitimacy and corporate environmental communication ». Accounting, Organizations and Society 34 (1): 1‑ 27.

Al-Tuwaijri, S. A., Christensen T. E., Hughes II K. E. (2004). « The relations among environmental disclosure, environmental performance, and economic performance: a simultaneous equations approach ». Accounting, Organizations and Society 29 (5-6): 447‑ 71.

Beck, A. C., Campbell D., Shrives P. J. (2010). « Content analysis in environmental reporting research: Enrichment and rehearsal of the method in a British-German context ». The British Accounting Review 42 (3): 207‑ 22.

Boyer-Allirol, B. (2013). « Faut-il mieux réglementer le reporting extrafinancier  ? ». Revue française de gestion 237 (8): 73‑ 95. [OpenAIRE]

Brown, H. S., de Jong M., Lessidrenska T. (2009). « The rise of the Global Reporting Initiative: a case of institutional entrepreneurship ». Environmental Politics 18 (2): 182‑ 200.

Brown, H. S. (2011). « Global Reporting Initiative ». In Handbook of Transnational Governance: Institutions & Innovations, 281‑ 88. Policy Press.

Brulhart, F., Gherra S. (2013). « Management des parties prenantes, pro-activité environnementale et rentabilité  : le cas du secteur des produits de grande consommation en France ». Finance Contrôle Stratégie, no 16-2 (juillet). [OpenAIRE]

Chatterji, A. K., Toffel M. W. (2010). « How Firms Respond to Being Rated ». Strategic Management Journal 31 (9): 917‑ 45.

Cho, C. H., Guidry R. P., Hageman A. M., Patten D. M. (2012). « Do actions speak louder than words? An empirical investigation of corporate environmental reputation ». Accounting, Organizations and Society 37 (1): 14‑ 25.

Cho, C. H., Patten, D. M. (2007). « The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: A research note ». Accounting, Organizations and Society 32 (7-8): 639‑ 47.

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    citations
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
  • citations
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    Powered byBIP!BIP!
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
citations
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Related to Research communities