The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Environmental Reporting and its Relation to Corporate Environmental Performance
Abstract
This study examines how both the level and the nature of environmental information voluntarily disclosed by Australian firms relate to their underlying environmental performance. Disclosure is scored using an index developed by Clarkson et al. (2008) based on Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Guidelines and the environmental performance measure is based on emission data available from the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI). The sample consists of 51 firms that reported to the NPI in both 2002 and 2006. The findings are as follows. First, descriptive statistics indicate that while there was modest improvement in disclosure between 2002 and 2006, the highest disclosure score obtained was just slightly in excess of 50% of the maximum available based on the GRI Guidelines. Second, the results consistently indicate that not only do firms with a higher pollution propensity disclose more environmental information; they also rely on disclosures that the GRI views as inherently more objective and verifiable. Taken together, these results suggest that concerns regarding the reliability of voluntary environmental disclosures in the Australian context remain valid and thereby potentially signal a need for both enhanced mandatory reporting requirements and improved enforcement. In this regard, our study also informs regulatory policy on mandatory disclosures of environmental performance.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Healy, P. M., & Palepu, K. G. (2001) · Journal of Accounting and Economics · doi:10.1016/s0165-4101(01)00018-0 · Cited by 8,097
Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D., & Vasvari, F. P. (2008) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2007.05.003 · Cited by 3,570
Self-citationVerrecchia, R. E. (1983) · Journal of Accounting and Economics · doi:10.1016/0165-4101(83)90011-3 · Cited by 3,481
Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosures content analysis
Milne, M. J., & Adler, R. W. (1999) · Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal · doi:10.1108/09513579910270138 · Cited by 1,425
Cited by
Hahn, R., & Kühnen, M. (2013) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005 · Cited by 1,775
The Influence of Firm Size on the ESG Score: Corporate Sustainability Ratings Under Review
Drempetic, S., Klein, C., & Zwergel, B. (2020) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-019-04164-1 · Cited by 1,537
Corporate Incentives to Disclose Carbon Information: Evidence from the CDP Global 500 Report
Luo, L., Lan, Y., & Tang, Q. (2012) · Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting · doi:10.1111/j.1467-646x.2012.01055.x · Cited by 448
Morioka, S. N., & de Carvalho, M. M. (2016) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.104 · Cited by 347
The Worldwide Diffusion of the Global Reporting Initiative: What Is the Point?
Marimon, F., Alonso-Almeida, M. D. M., Rodríguez, M. D. P., & Cortez Alejandro, K. A. (2012) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.04.017 · Cited by 332
Metadata
- Authors
- CLARKSON, P. M., OVERELL, M. B., & CHAPPLE, L.
- Venue
- Abacus
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-03
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 27-60
- ISSN
- 0001-3072 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-6281
- OpenAlex
- W1506593051
- Cited by
- 707
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 72.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Environmental Reporting and its Relation to Corporate Environmental Performance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-6281.2011.00330.x
- The paper
- CLARKSON, P. M., OVERELL, M. B., & CHAPPLE, L. (2011). Environmental Reporting and its Relation to Corporate Environmental Performance. Abacus. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6281.2011.00330.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.