Multiple institutional and stakeholder demands have led to different strategies in the measurement and disclosure of carbon‐related information. Although scholars acknowledge the prevalence of competing institutional logics as being a driver of different outcomes, existing research offers conflicting views on their implications, thus lacking clarity. In response, this paper proposes two frameworks (a) to clarify the institutional and stakeholder influences on carbon disclosure and (b) to depict four different types of carbon disclosure strategies to assess a company's “true” carbon position. We identify various concepts of institutional fields, organisations, and stakeholders that influence disclosure and combine the two critical concepts of logic centrality and stakeholder salience to categorise the multiple institutional and stakeholder pressures on carbon disclosure. Whereas the first framework proposes that institutional theory and stakeholder theory both provide, on different levels, a theoretical foundation to examine the influences on carbon disclosure, the second model categorises carbon disclosure outcomes in terms of logic centrality and stakeholder salience. Both frameworks advance the understanding of the interaction between firm‐level agency and field‐level pressures and synthesise the current literature to offer conceptual clarity regarding the varied implications and outcomes linked to carbon disclosure practices and strategies.
Austrian Classification of Fields of Science and Technology (ÖFOS)
- 502017 Logistics
- 201128 Sustainable building