{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023627771719374774, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0058160668847691745, 'mean_word_length': 5.341013824884793, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Convergence in Environmental Reporting: Assessing the Carbon Disclosure Project

This study is based on a longitudinal analysis of corporate responses to the Carbon Disclosure’s Project’s (CDP) annual survey. In particular, it concentrates on responses to survey questions on direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2 and Scope 3) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The study examines the following trends within these responses: numerical data, external verification of emissions and references to carbon accounting protocols. The analysis is from 2003 to 2010. Results indicate increases in numerical data over the study period, particularly within responses to Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions questions. However, there remains a consistent level of unanswered Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions questions, and a high level of unanswered Scope 3 questions. External verification of these emissions appears to have remained nearly constant, in contrast, references to the WBSCD/WRI GHG Protocol increased over the period of the study. Although these particular trends have not been examined in prior research, I found that this article had some shortcomings. In relation to the conceptual framework, it could have been more coherent and clear. The key concepts, reporting transparency, convergence and standardisation, were not sufficiently explained, particularly in relation to the investigation of the study. Further, the relationship between the concepts was not clear. In this sense, there seemed to be no overarching framework connecting the concepts. Perhaps if a more coherent evaluative/conceptual framework underpinned the content analysis, this would have strengthened the contribution of the article. I think that this conceptual ambiguity detracted from the content analysis. The analysis consisted of frequency counts of answered, unanswered questions and numbers/words in answers. I am not sure that this level of analysis was sufficiently rich to assess concepts such as convergence, transparency and quality, much less to make claims about these issues. Similarly, it is hard to see how increases in numbers and words give rise to transparency or standardisation, which seems to be an argument made in the article. Given the assertion in the study that the CDP drives reporting convergence, perhaps institutional theory (e.g. isomorphic forces) may be employed to explain developments in disclosure overtime, in particular the process and type of convergence induced by a global institution like the CDP. This convergence, in whatever form it takes, may have unintended negative consequences for transparency of companies’ climate change activities and information quality. An argument along these lines may have added to the value of this study.