Corresponding author: Bahar Keskin den Doelder ( keskindendoelder@ese.eur.nl ) Academic editor: Karen Maas
© 2020 Jan Stolker, Bahar Keskin den Doelder, Jatinder S. Sidhu.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits to copy and distribute the article for non-commercial purposes, provided that the article is not altered or modified and the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Stolker J, Keskin den Doelder B, Sidhu JS (2020) Climate-related reporting by publicly listed companies in The Netherlands: an attention-action mapping. Maandblad Voor Accountancy en Bedrijfseconomie 94(7/8): 285-292. https://doi.org/10.5117/mab.94.50444
|
Against the backdrop of increasing calls for mandatory and voluntary climate-related disclosures by companies, this article provides insight into how the (integrated) annual reports of companies listed on the AEX index in the Netherlands, communicated companies’ engagement with climate issues from 2016 to 2018. Drawing on research in the cognitive psychology domain, the article examines companies’ reported attention to climate change as well as their climate-related actions. It shows that although there are noticeable climate attention and action differences among AEX companies, over time the companies as a whole have started doing more in relation to climate – for example, in terms of attention, there is increase in the inclusion of climate considerations in strategy making and, in terms of action, there is increase in the inclusion of climate in material risks. The article discusses the research findings, which have implications for effective governance by corporate boards.
Climate reporting, attention to climate, climate actions, AEX companies, SDG 13, non-executive directors
As a new decennium starts, academic and public consensus continues to shift towards the view that the pursuit of profits and social goals by business corporations need not imply the pursuit of either opposing or mutually exclusive ends (
At present, several financial-market organizations compile and disseminate companies’ ESG-related ratings. Thus, interested parties can turn to, for instance, the Bloomberg ESG data, the Dow Jones Sustainability Index and the FTSE4Good Index. A concern with such ratings as well as self-disclosures by companies is that in the absence of clear regulations and universal standards, companies’ ESG scores entail subjectivity and are not easily verifiable and comparable across firms and industries (e.g.,
With the above as background, this article examines how the corporate reports of publicly listed companies on the AEX index in the Netherlands communicated or reported their engagement with climate issues in the three-year period from 2016 to 2018. Because the AEX index includes companies whose shares are most frequently traded on the stock exchange, the companies on the index have strong incentive and face strong stakeholder pressure to address climate concerns (e.g.,
Our analysis reveals variation across companies in terms of the attention they paid to climate and the concrete actions they took to deal with climate-related issues. Furthermore, our analysis also shows an attention-action correspondence – companies that paid less attention to the climate factor were also the ones that took less actions to tackle climate concerns. In addition, the analysis indicates some change over time in individual companies’ engagement with climate-related issues. We start below, in Section 2, by outlining the research background. Section 3 describes the research methodology in terms of the corporate reports that were examined, and the indicators that were used to measure companies’ attention to climate and companies’ climate-related actions. Section 4 reports and discusses the study’s findings. Section 5 presents a concluding discussion centering on the implications of the study’s findings for practitioners and researchers; the section also offers suggestions for future research.
Contrary to
In relation to climate-related social goals, for example, companies differ with respect to voluntarily reporting their engagement with climate-related concerns, suggesting differences in whether climate goals are pursued. The incentive and pressure on companies to communicate their focus on climate issues to stakeholders has, however, increased vastly in the last decade as public concern about global warming and sustainability has grown. In this regard, the 2015 Paris Agreement, the inclusion of “climate action” as one of the U.N.’s SDGs, the 2014 EU's Non-Financial Reporting Directive that came into effect in the Netherlands in 2017, information demands from investors and other stakeholders, and efforts by governmental and private institutes and organizations to provide recommendations and tools that facilitate climate-related disclosures are important developments that are pressing companies harder to engage with climate issues.
The attention-action framework constitutes a useful template for documenting companies’ engagement with climate issues. Attention is an important psychological construct, which captures the cognitive processes of noticing and interpreting specific environmental cues and devoting time and effort to acquiring information related to them (
The attention focus of corporate leaders is postulated to be the precursor of action (
This study employs the attention-action framework to examine how publicly listed companies in the Netherlands communicate their engagement with climate issues in corporate reports. In particular, we map the attention paid to climate issues as well as the climate-related actions taken by the companies. The mapping exercise seeks to establish whether there are differences among companies in their attention and actions, and how companies’ attention and actions changed over the three-year period from 2016 to 2018. Such a descriptive account of companies’ engagement with climate issues constitutes an important first step towards developing better scholarly understanding of how and why companies’ respond differently to incentives and pressures for more corporate social responsibility. It can also provide important practical insights for companies, which enable the effective balancing of shareholder expectations regarding financial performance with stakeholder expectations regarding climate-related social performance.
For the attention-action mapping, we focused on the 25 companies that were on the AEX listing in November 2019. As one of these companies was not listed on the AEX in 2016 and 2017, for these two years our sample comprised 24 companies. We obtained our data primarily from the companies’ annual reports for 2016, 2017 and 2018. In addition, whenever an annual report referred to the annual sustainability report or an integrated annual report was available, we also examined the latter reports to assess company’s engagement with climate issues. We employed a set of eight items to gauge companies’ attention to climate and another set of eight items to gauge their climate actions. In particular, we systematically and diligently inspected all annual, integrated and sustainability reports to determine companies’ annual score vis-à-vis each item. Specifically, with regard to each item, we instructed two trained research assistants to independently go through all reports, and extract and record all relevant text having bearing on an item. The assistants focused on text that was explicitly about climate change and ignored text that was only indirectly linked to climate change through a reference to, say, sustainability, or the usage of other common terms such as "ecological", "environmental" and "green". The assistants also noted down the page numbers on which extracted textual material appeared in the reports. After this, one of the paper’s co-authors cross-checked whether there was clear correspondence between the textual material extracted by the assistants and the focal items. Any instances of doubtful correspondence were resolved through a discussion with the assistants and by examining texts in their context, i.e., by reading the texts in the reports they were extracted from. After this, we used the extracted textual material to assign scores to companies for each item for each year. Table
Looking at Table
Climate attention and action items, scoring schemes, and number of scoring companies per year.
Items | Scoring scheme | Number of companies | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
A. Climate attention | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | |
1. There is reference to ‘climate’ in company’s mission statement | Yes=2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Reference to sustainability, but not to climate specifically =1 | 3 | 6 | 5 | |
No=0 | 21 | 18 | 20 | |
2. There is reference to ‘climate’ in CEO’s letter to shareholders | Yes=1 | 8 | 12 | 11 |
No=0 | 16 | 12 | 14 | |
3. SDG 13 is prioritised relative to other SDGs | Yes=2 | 5 | 9 | 9 |
A little=1 | 2 | 4 | 3 | |
No=0 | 17 | 11 | 13 | |
4. There is reference to ‘climate’ in the company’s strategy | Explicitly=2 | 12 | 15 | 21 |
Implicitly=1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | |
No=0 | 10 | 8 | 4 | |
5. There is reference to ‘climate’ in the report of the supervisory board | Yes=1 | 5 | 5 | 9 |
No=0 | 19 | 19 | 16 | |
6. Risk/opportunity is quantified or qualified | Yes=1 | 13 | 16 | 19 |
No=0 | 11 | 8 | 6 | |
7. Urgency to take action is evident | Explicitly=2 | 11 | 12 | 16 |
Implicitly=1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | |
No=0 | 10 | 11 | 8 | |
8. Costs of CO2 emissions is mentioned and quantified | Yes=1 | 4 | 5 | 5 |
No=0 | 20 | 19 | 20 | |
B. Climate action | ||||
1. Climate and/or CO2 are used for bonus/award schemes | Yes=1 | 2 | 6 | 6 |
No=0 | 22 | 18 | 19 | |
2. Steps to address climate change initiated | Several steps taken=2 | 15 | 17 | 21 |
A step taken=1 | 4 | 5 | 3 | |
No steps taken=0 | 5 | 2 | 1 | |
3. Climate targets exist and are monitored | Quantitative=2 | 16 | 16 | 17 |
Qualitative=1 | 4 | 6 | 7 | |
No=0 | 4 | 2 | 1 | |
4. There are requirements for suppliers regarding climate/CO2 | Yes=1 | 5 | 8 | 9 |
No=0 | 19 | 16 | 16 | |
5. Low-carbon products/services are offered | Yes=1 | 14 | 12 | 14 |
No=0 | 10 | 12 | 11 | |
6. Company includes climate change in material risks | Yes=1 | 11 | 13 | 16 |
No=0 | 13 | 11 | 9 | |
7. Carbon emissions are reported | Scope 1, 2 & 3 = 2 | 11 | 11 | 15 |
Scope 1&2 = 1 | 9 | 9 | 6 | |
Not reported = 0 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
8. TCFD recommendations are used for reporting | There is a TCFD report=2 | 0 | 3 | 7 |
Intention to use TCFD=1 | 3 | 7 | 6 | |
No engagement with TCFD=0 | 21 | 14 | 12 |
Turning to Table
Climate action scores | Climate attention scores | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Company / YEAR | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | Change 2016–2018 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | Change 2016–2018 |
Aalberts Ind. | 2 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 4 |
ABN AMRO | 3 | 7 | 8 | 5 | 0 | 7 | 8 | 8 |
Adyen | n.a. | n.a. | 0 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | 0 | n.a. |
Aegon | 5 | 7 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 6 |
Ahold Delhaize | 7 | 7 | 9 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 3 |
Akzo Nobel | 9 | 9 | 8 | -1 | 9 | 8 | 5 | -4 |
ArcelorMittal | 8 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 4 | 8 | 10 | 6 |
ASML | 4 | 4 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 4 |
ASR Nederland | 7 | 9 | 9 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 4 |
DSM | 10 | 10 | 11 | 1 | 11 | 11 | 10 | -1 |
Galapagos | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Heineken | 7 | 8 | 9 | 2 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 0 |
IMCD | 0 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
ING Group | 9 | 11 | 11 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 2 |
KPN | 8 | 8 | 9 | 1 | 8 | 3 | 7 | -1 |
NN Group | 7 | 8 | 9 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 3 |
Philips | 8 | 9 | 11 | 3 | 7 | 6 | 10 | 3 |
Randstad Holding | 5 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
RELX Group | 6 | 6 | 8 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 0 |
Royal Dutch Shell | 6 | 8 | 8 | 2 | 7 | 10 | 10 | 3 |
Takeawaycom | 0 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Unibail-Rodamco | 9 | 9 | 10 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 0 |
Unilever | 8 | 9 | 11 | 3 | 8 | 11 | 10 | 2 |
Vopak | 3 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 1 |
Wolters Kluwer | 5 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 2 |
Total Score | 136 | 160 | 187 | 96 | 122 | 145 | ||
Average Score* | 5,67 | 6,67 | 7,48 | 4,00 | 5,08 | 5,80 | ||
Companies with decrease in score | 1 | 3 | ||||||
Companies with no change in score | 3 | 5 | ||||||
Companies with increase in score | 18 | 16 |
Figure
Watershed events such as the 2015 Paris Agreement and the E.U. non-financial reporting directive have added a sense of urgency to the calls for voluntary and mandatory disclosure of companies’ engagement with climate issues connected to their business. In this context, the present study examines the corporate reports of publicly listed companies in the Netherlands to document their attention to climate issues from 2016 to 2018 and the climate actions they took. The attention-action mapping exercise we present is new to the literature on climate-related reporting. Our analysis shows that the companies in our sample differ in terms of their climate attention and climate actions, and that more attention is related generally to more action. The analysis also reveals considerable differences in attention and action across firms. Considering that all firms in our sample are large in terms of market capitalization, are traded frequently, and are subject to similar public scrutiny and stakeholder pressures, the differences in their attention and actions presumably reflect differences in industry, firm and intra-firm factors.
Interestingly, referring to the difference between climate attention and climate action scores that underlie the mapping shown in Figure
In addition, AEX firms’ climate attention and climate action scores mostly increased between 2016 and 2018. This is consistent with the more intense pressure on firms to engage with climate issues and to share publicly the climate actions they have taken. A look at individual indicators of climate attention in 2018 reveals that in terms of external communication, climate issues were explicitly mentioned in the CEO letters-to-shareholders of only 11 AEX firms (i.e., 44%). Many CEOs, thus, still do not give much attention to climate when communicating with shareholders and potential investors. However, by 2018, 21 AEX firms (i.e., 88%) had paid some attention to climate change in the context of strategy formulation. In all but one case, companies also reported steps to reduce carbon emissions, plausibly reflecting an attention-action dynamic. In a similar vein, attention to climate as a material risk was always associated with goals (quantitative or qualitative) and steps to combat climate change. Surprisingly, climate was included on the agenda of non-executive directors (NEDs) on supervisory boards of only 9 AEX firms (i.e., 36%). This suggests that CEOs and executive directors seem to pay more attention to climate than NEDs, even though the latter supposedly have a major role to play in this regard.
On the whole, our investigation indicates that attention to climate and climate-related actions are on the rise among AEX companies. Moreover, inasmuch as greater climate action follows greater climate attention, the increase in attention in the last years can be expected to lead to more action in the future. This said, one message to come from this study for corporate leaders is that firms can do much more in terms of engaging with climate than they seem to do currently. For example, we did not find across the board evidence for a comprehensive approach to climate-related risk management. In a context in which the Dutch Central Bank (
An additional message to come from our study therefore is that companies should seek a greater engagement of NEDs with climate issues. The involvement of NEDs is likely to enhance attention to climate, because strategy discussions become richer with the availability of a more diverse range of perspectives and suggestions (e.g.,
As any other piece of research, our descriptive account of AEX firms also has limitations. One limitation of our study is that it focused only on large firms. As a result, we do not know how medium-sized and smaller firms’ attention to climate and climate actions compare to those of larger firms.
Future work could thus seek to expand our study by examining a broader sample of firms. In addition, the scope of this study did not allow us to examine inter and intra-industry differences in attention and action, and the reasons for these. Future work in this direction would be of much value. Furthermore, our analysis was based on climate information reported in corporate reports. It would be interesting to know in the future how disclosures in corporate reports tally with companies’ mandatory climate reporting.
Drs. J.H.P.M. Stolker is director at the Erasmus Governance Institute, Erasmus University Rotterdam.
M.Sc. B. Keskin den Doelder is associate researcher at the Impact Centre Erasmus, Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Prof. dr. J.S. Sidhu is Chair in Strategic Management and Organization, Leeds University Business School, University of Leeds.
The authors thank Fenna ten Haaf and Max Knigge for their help with data collection.