Legitimization Tools or Governance Tools? A Systematic Literature Review of Corporate Governance and Carbon Disclosure Quality

IF 4.8 Q1 BUSINESS
Guifang Zhu, Tze San Ong, Ahmad Fahmi Sheikh Hassan
{"title":"Legitimization Tools or Governance Tools? A Systematic Literature Review of Corporate Governance and Carbon Disclosure Quality","authors":"Guifang Zhu,&nbsp;Tze San Ong,&nbsp;Ahmad Fahmi Sheikh Hassan","doi":"10.1002/bsd2.70117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>As global climate challenges intensify, corporate carbon disclosure quality (CDQ) has emerged as a vital indicator of corporate environmental transparency and accountability. However, corporate governance (CG) mechanisms remain contested: are they primarily legitimation tools to meet external expectations or governance instruments to ensure substantive environmental performance? This study conducts a systematic literature review (SLR) utilizing the PRISMA framework, methodically screening and synthesizing 64 studies published between 2011 and 2024. Key findings encompass (1) Persistent suboptimal CDQ across both developed and emerging markets; (2) A trend towards theoretical integration, with the CG-CDQ relationship increasingly reflecting the interplay of multiple theoretical frameworks; (3) Dynamic duality of CG's role, wherein its primary function depends on institutional pressure, governance architecture, and stakeholder oversight; (4) Bridging institutional voids in emerging economies, as demonstrated by China's state-owned enterprises (SOEs) surpassing non-state-owned firms under policy incentives. This study also identifies critical research gaps: over two-thirds of CG-CDQ studies concentrate on the US, Europe, and China, while ASEAN and Africa—carbon-intensive regions—remain underexplored, constituting a 90% research void. The cultural dimension is frequently neglected, with only one study examining informal institutions, such as Confucianism. These findings highlight that governments should mandate carbon disclosure standards, implement cross-border accreditation mechanisms, and enhance social oversight; corporations should bolster governance, incorporate environmental expertise, and ensure that 30% of their executives are female; and investors should advocate for ESG performance agreements that correlate carbon disclosure with investment returns, fostering sustainable development.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36531,"journal":{"name":"Business Strategy and Development","volume":"8 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Business Strategy and Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bsd2.70117","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As global climate challenges intensify, corporate carbon disclosure quality (CDQ) has emerged as a vital indicator of corporate environmental transparency and accountability. However, corporate governance (CG) mechanisms remain contested: are they primarily legitimation tools to meet external expectations or governance instruments to ensure substantive environmental performance? This study conducts a systematic literature review (SLR) utilizing the PRISMA framework, methodically screening and synthesizing 64 studies published between 2011 and 2024. Key findings encompass (1) Persistent suboptimal CDQ across both developed and emerging markets; (2) A trend towards theoretical integration, with the CG-CDQ relationship increasingly reflecting the interplay of multiple theoretical frameworks; (3) Dynamic duality of CG's role, wherein its primary function depends on institutional pressure, governance architecture, and stakeholder oversight; (4) Bridging institutional voids in emerging economies, as demonstrated by China's state-owned enterprises (SOEs) surpassing non-state-owned firms under policy incentives. This study also identifies critical research gaps: over two-thirds of CG-CDQ studies concentrate on the US, Europe, and China, while ASEAN and Africa—carbon-intensive regions—remain underexplored, constituting a 90% research void. The cultural dimension is frequently neglected, with only one study examining informal institutions, such as Confucianism. These findings highlight that governments should mandate carbon disclosure standards, implement cross-border accreditation mechanisms, and enhance social oversight; corporations should bolster governance, incorporate environmental expertise, and ensure that 30% of their executives are female; and investors should advocate for ESG performance agreements that correlate carbon disclosure with investment returns, fostering sustainable development.

合法化工具还是治理工具?公司治理与碳信息披露质量的系统文献综述
随着全球气候挑战的加剧,企业碳信息披露质量(CDQ)已成为衡量企业环境透明度和问责制的重要指标。然而,公司管治机制仍然存在争议:它们主要是满足外部期望的合法工具,还是确保实质性环境绩效的管治工具?本研究利用PRISMA框架进行了系统的文献综述(SLR),系统地筛选和综合了2011年至2024年间发表的64项研究。主要发现包括:(1)发达市场和新兴市场的CDQ持续处于次优状态;(2)理论整合的趋势,CG-CDQ关系日益反映出多种理论框架的相互作用;(3)企业治理角色的动态二元性,其主要功能取决于制度压力、治理架构和利益相关者监督;(4)弥合新兴经济体的制度空白,如中国国有企业在政策激励下超越非国有企业。本研究还指出了关键的研究空白:超过三分之二的碳- cdq研究集中在美国、欧洲和中国,而东盟和非洲这些碳密集型地区仍未得到充分探索,构成了90%的研究空白。文化维度经常被忽视,只有一项研究考察了非正式制度,比如儒家思想。研究结果表明,政府应强制执行碳披露标准,实施跨境认证机制,并加强社会监督;公司应该加强治理,吸收环境方面的专业知识,并确保30%的高管是女性;投资者应倡导ESG绩效协议,将碳披露与投资回报联系起来,促进可持续发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Business Strategy and Development
Business Strategy and Development Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics, Econometrics and Finance (all)
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
33
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信