Can Environmental Performance and Targets Signal True Sustainability Advancements? An Evaluation Framework with Evidence from Polluting Industries-Journal of Sustainability Research-CSCIED科技核心评价数据库-手机版

Can Environmental Performance and Targets Signal True Sustainability Advancements? An Evaluation Framework with Evidence from Polluting Industries

Can Environmental Performance and Targets Signal True Sustainability Advancements? An Evaluation Framework with Evidence from Polluting Industries

ES评分 0 浏览量：108 下载量：0

全文阅读下载引用收藏

DOI	10.20900/jsr20250069
刊名	Journal of Sustainability Research JSR
年，卷(期)	2025, 7(4)
作者	Elisa Aracil*,Timo Gerres,Anna-Joy Kuehlwein,
作者单位	Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Universidad Pontificia Comillas, Madrid 28015, Spain ; Instituto de Investigación Tecnológica, Universidad Pontificia Comillas, Madrid 28015, Spain ; Independent Financial Advisor & ESG Analyst, Stuttgart 70049, Germany ;
摘要	Truly sustainable firms have the potential to drive transformative change for the planet and society. This article operationalizes the true sustainability concept by offering an evaluative framework for its assessment. Building on signaling theory, our framework assesses true sustainability by integrating environmental performance and targets, providing a holistic perspective. Applying this framework to 12,312 global observations from leading, highly polluting industries in steel, cement, and aluminium, we identify selective environmental achievements and targets centered primarily on greenhouse gas emissions, overlooking broader environmental themes. Moreover, most producers set distant environmental targets (2050 or beyond), lacking interim milestones or alignment with prior environmental achievements, thereby compromising target feasibility and future orientation towards true sustainability. The framework is applicable across sectors, geographical contexts, and time frames, offering value to transition finance providers, socially responsible investors, and managers aiming to foster true sustainability advancements and manage the green transition.
Abstract	Truly sustainable firms have the potential to drive transformative change for the planet and society. This article operationalizes the true sustainability concept by offering an evaluative framework for its assessment. Building on signaling theory, our framework assesses true sustainability by integrating environmental performance and targets, providing a holistic perspective. Applying this framework to 12,312 global observations from leading, highly polluting industries in steel, cement, and aluminium, we identify selective environmental achievements and targets centered primarily on greenhouse gas emissions, overlooking broader environmental themes. Moreover, most producers set distant environmental targets (2050 or beyond), lacking interim milestones or alignment with prior environmental achievements, thereby compromising target feasibility and future orientation towards true sustainability. The framework is applicable across sectors, geographical contexts, and time frames, offering value to transition finance providers, socially responsible investors, and managers aiming to foster true sustainability advancements and manage the green transition.
关键词	environmental performance; environmental targets; true sustainability; signals; polluting industries; emissions; selective environmental behavior; transition finance
KeyWord	environmental performance; environmental targets; true sustainability; signals; polluting industries; emissions; selective environmental behavior; transition finance
基金项目
页码	-

参考文献
相关文献

1.Kolk A. Evaluating corporate environmental reporting. Bus Strat Environ. 1999;8:225-37.

2.Welford R. Environmental strategy and sustainable development: The corporate challenge for the twenty-first century. London (UK): Routledge; 1995.

3.UN. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 11 September 2015. New York (NY, USA): United Nations; 2015.

4.Dyllick T, Muff K. Clarifying the meaning of sustainable business: Introducing a typology from business-as-usual to true business sustainability. Org Environ. 2016;29:156-74.

5.Shevchenko A, Lévesque M, Pagell M. Why firms delay reaching true sustainability. J Manag Stud. 2016;53:911-35.

6.Haffar M, Searcy C. Target‐setting for ecological resilience: Are companies setting environmental sustainability targets in line with planetary thresholds? Bus Strat Environ. 2018a;27(7):1079-92.

7.Scheyvens R, Banks G, Hughes E. The private sector and the SDGs: The need to move beyond ‘business as usual.’ Sustain Dev. 2016;24:371-82.

8.White A. Swamped by sustainability indicators that fail to drive transformation. London (UK): The Guardian; 2013.

9.Landrum NE. Stages of corporate sustainability: Integrating the strong sustainability worldview. Org Environ. 2018;31:287-313.

10.Ehrenfeld JR. The roots of sustainability. MIT Sloan Manag Rev. 2005;46:23.

11.Sihvonen S, Partanen J. Eco-design practices with a focus on quantitative environmental targets: An exploratory content analysis within ICT sector. J Clean Prod. 2017;143:769-83.

12.Boiral O, Henri J-F. Is sustainability performance comparable? A study of GRI reports of mining organizations. Bus Soc. 2017;56:283-317.

13.Deegan C. Introduction: The legitimizing effect of social and environmental disclosures—A theoretical foundation. Account Auditing Accountabil J. 2002;15:282-311.

14.García-Meca E, Martínez-Ferrero J. Is SDG reporting substantial or symbolic? An examination of controversial and environmentally sensitive industries. J Clean Prod. 2021;298:126781.

15.Hummel K, Schlick C. The relationship between sustainability performance and sustainability disclosure–reconciling voluntary disclosure theory and legitimacy theory. J Account Public Policy. 2016;35:455-76.

16.Talbot D, Boiral O. GHG reporting and impression management: An assessment of sustainability reports from the energy sector. J Bus Ethics. 2018;147:367-83.

17.Schütze F, Stede J. The EU sustainable finance taxonomy and its contribution to climate neutrality. J Sustain Finance Invest. 2024;14(1):128-60.

18.Spence M. Job market signaling. Q J Econ. 1973;87:355.

19.Isaksson R, Steimle U. What does GRI‐reporting tell us about corporate sustainability? TQM J. 2009;21(2):168-81.

20.Avrampou A, Skouloudis A, Iliopoulos G, Khan N. Advancing the sustainable development goals: Evidence from leading European banks. Sustain Dev. 2019;27:743-57.

21.Chen S, Bouvain P. Is corporate responsibility converging? A comparison of corporate responsibility reporting in the USA, UK, Australia, and Germany. J Bus Ethics. 2009;87:299-317.

22.Holder-Webb L, Cohen JR, Nath L, Wood D. The supply of corporate social responsibility disclosures among US firms. J Bus Ethics. 2009;84:497-527.

23.Skouloudis A, Evangelinos K, Kourmousis F. Development of an evaluation methodology for triple bottom line reports using international standards on reporting. Environ Manag. 2009;44:298-311.

24.Yadava RN, Sinha B. Scoring sustainability reports using GRI 2011 guidelines for assessing environmental, economic, and social dimensions of leading public and private Indian companies. J Bus Ethics. 2016;138:549-58.

25.Heras‐Saizarbitoria I, Urbieta L, Boiral O. Organizations’ engagement with sustainable development goals: From cherry‐picking to SDG‐washing? Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag. 2022;29:316-28.

26.Morthorst PE. National environmental targets and international emission reduction instruments. Energy Policy. 2003;31:73-83.

27.Mitchell G. Problems and fundamentals of sustainable development indicators. Sustain Dev. 1996;4:1-11.

28.Boiral O, Henri J-F, Talbot D. Modeling the impacts of corporate commitment on climate change. Bus Strat Environ. 2012;21:495-516.

29.Bergh DD, Connelly BL, Ketchen DJ Jr, Shannon LM. Signalling theory and equilibrium in strategic management research: An assessment and a research agenda. J Manag Stud. 2014;51:1334-60.

30.Connelly BL, Certo ST, Ireland RD, Reutzel CR. Signaling theory: A review and assessment. J Manag. 2011;37:39-67.

31.Zerbini F. CSR initiatives as market signals: A review and research agenda. J Bus Ethics. 2017;146:1-23.

32.Albertini E. Does environmental management improve financial performance? A meta-analytical review. Org Environ. 2013;26:431-57.

33.Davila A, Foster G, Gupta M. Venture capital financing and the growth of startup firms. J Bus Ventur. 2003;18:689-708.

34.Busenitz LW, Fiet JO, Moesel DD. Signaling in venture capitalist—new venture team funding decisions: Does it indicate long–term venture outcomes? Entrep Theory Pract. 2005;29:1-12.

35.Searcy C. Defining true sustainability. MIT Sloan Manag Rev. 2018. Available from: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/defining-true-sustainability/. Accessed on 1 Feb 2022.

36.Balluchi F, Lazzini A, Torelli R. Credibility of environmental issues in non-financial mandatory disclosure: Measurement and determinants. J Clean Prod. 2021;288:125744.

37.Lock I, Seele P. The credibility of CSR (corporate social responsibility) reports in Europe. Evidence from a quantitative content analysis in 11 countries. J Clean Prod. 2016;122:186-200.

38.Fonseca A, McAllister ML, Fitzpatrick P. Sustainability reporting among mining corporations: A constructive critique of the GRI approach. J Clean Prod. 2014;84:70-83.

39.Calabrese A, Costa R, Levialdi N, Menichini T. A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process method to support materiality assessment in sustainability reporting. J Clean Prod. 2016;121:248-64.

40.Gardberg NA, Zyglidopoulos SC, Symeou PC, Schepers DH. The impact of corporate philanthropy on reputation for corporate social performance. Bus Soc. 2019;58:1177-208.

41.Gomulya D, Mishina Y. Signaler credibility, signal susceptibility, and relative reliance on signals: How stakeholders change their evaluative processes after violation of expectations and rehabilitative efforts. Acad Manag J. 2017;60:554-83.

42.Stiglitz JE. The contributions of the economics of information to twentieth century economics. Q J Econ. 2000;115:1441-78.

43.Sikdar SK. Fractured state of decisions on sustainability: An assessment. Sustain Prod Consum. 2019;19:231-7.

44.Elkington J. Accounting for the triple bottom line. Meas Bus Excell. 1998;2(3):18-22

45.Mårald E, Priebe J. Sustainability metamorphosis: An inconvenient change. Nat Cult. 2021;16:1-12.

46.Rogelj J, Schaeffer M, Meinshausen M, Knutti R, Alcamo J, Riahi K, et al. Zero emission targets as long-term global goals for climate protection. Environ Res Lett. 2015;10:105007.

47.Brundtland GH. Our common future—call for action. Environ Conserv. 1987;14:291-4.

48.Ramus CA. Encouraging innovative environmental actions: What companies and managers must do. J World Bus. 2002;37:151-64.

49.Westphal JD, Zajac EJ. Decoupling policy from practice: The case of stock Repurchase programs. Admin Sci Q. 2001;46:202-28.

50.McKinnon A, Piecyk M. Setting targets for reducing carbon emissions from logistics: Current practice and guiding principles. Carbon Manag. 2012;3:629-39.

51.Barnett ML. The business case for corporate social responsibility: A critique and an indirect path forward. In: Limits to stakeholder influence. Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar Publishing; 2018. p. 228-51.

52.Tetrault Sirsly C-A, Lamertz K. When does a corporate social responsibility initiative provide a first-mover advantage? Bus Soc. 2008;47:343-69.

53.Knopf B, Luderer G, Edenhofer O. Exploring the feasibility of low stabilization targets. WIRES Clim Change. 2011;2:617-26.

54.Marimon F, Alonso-Almeida MM, Rodríguez MP, Alejandro KAC. The worldwide diffusion of the global reporting initiative: What is the point? J Clean Prod. 2012;33:132-44.

55.Roca LC, Searcy C. An analysis of indicators disclosed in corporate sustainability reports. J Clean Prod. 2012;20:103-18.

56.Krippendorff K. Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and recommendations. Hum Commun Res. 2004;30:411-33.

57.IEA. Industry direct CO2 emissions in the Net Zero and Announced Pledges scenarios, 2000–2030
[WWW Document]. Available from: https://www.iea.org/topics/industry. Accessed on 10 Mar 2022.

58.Schoenmaker D, Schramade W. Principles of sustainable finance. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2019.

59.Dietz S, Jahn V, Nachmany M, Noels J, Sullivan R. Methodology and indicators report. In: Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI). 2019. Available from: https://transitionpathwayinitiative.org/ Accessed on 1 February 2024.

60.Weber RP. Basic content analysis. Thousand Oaks (CA, US): Sage; 1990.

61.GSSB. Consolidated set of GRI sustainability reporting standards 2016. Amsterdam (Netherlands): Global Sustainability Standards Board (GSSB); 2016.

62.UN. Integrity matters: Net zero commitments by businesses, financial institutions, cities and regions. New York (NY, USA): United Nations; 2022.

63.Chiappinelli O, Gerres T, Neuhoff K, Lettow F, de Coninck H, Felsmann B, et al. A green COVID-19 recovery of the EU basic materials sector: Identifying potentials, barriers and policy solutions. Clim Policy. 2021;21(10):1328-46.

64.Gerres T. Understanding the implications of industrial decarbonization. Madrid (Spain): Comillas Pontifical University; 2022.

65.Murillo‐Luna JL, Garcés‐Ayerbe C, Rivera‐Torres P. Why do patterns of environmental response differ? A stakeholders’ pressure approach. Strateg Manag J. 2008;29(11):1225-40.

66.Fasan M, Mio C. Fostering stakeholder engagement: The role of materiality disclosure in integrated reporting. Bus Strat Environ. 2017;26:288-305.

67.Cormier D, Magnan M. The economic relevance of environmental disclosure and its impact on corporate legitimacy: An empirical investigation. Bus Strat Environ. 2015;24:431-50.

68.Unerman J, Zappettini F. Incorporating materiality considerations into analyses of absence from sustainability reporting. Soc Environ Accountabil J. 2014;34:172-86.

69.Siegel KM, Lima MGB. When international sustainability frameworks encounter domestic politics: The sustainable development goals and agri-food governance in South America. World Dev. 2020;135:105053.

70.Marquis C, Toffel MW, Zhou Y. Scrutiny, norms, and selective disclosure: A global study of greenwashing. Organ Sci. 2016;27:483-504.

71.Hale T, Smith SM, Black R, Cullen K, Fay B, Lang J, et al. Assessing the rapidly-emerging landscape of net zero targets. Clim Policy. 2022;22(1):18-29.

72.Haffar M, Searcy C. The use of context-based environmental indicators in corporate reporting. J Clean Prod. 2018;192:496-513.

73.Aracil E, Sancak I, editors. Essential concepts of sustainable finance: An AZ guide. London (UK): Taylor & Francis; 2023.

74.Bansal P, Clelland I. Talking trash: Legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic risk in the context of the natural environment. Acad Manag J. 2004;47:93-103.

75.Di Pietro F, Grilli L, Masciarelli F. Talking about a revolution? Costly and costless signals and the role of innovativeness in equity crowdfunding. J Small Bus Manag. 2023;61(2):831-62.

76.Elitzur R, Gavious A. Contracting, signaling, and moral hazard: A model of entrepreneurs, ‘angels,’ and venture capitalists. J Bus Ventur. 2003;18:709-25.

77.Janney JJ, Folta TB. Signaling through private equity placements and its impact on the valuation of biotechnology firms. J Bus Ventur. 2003;18:361-80.

78.Chofreh AG, Goni FA. Review of frameworks for sustainability implementation. Sustain Dev. 2017;25(3):180-8.

79.Piemonte C, Cattaneo O, Morris R, Pincet A, Poensgen K. Transition finance: Introducing a new concept. In: OECD Working Paper 54; Paris (France): OECD; 2019.

80.Polzin F, Sanders M. How to finance the transition to low-carbon energy in Europe? Energy Policy. 2020;147:111863.

引用本文

Elisa Aracil*,Timo Gerres,Anna-Joy Kuehlwein. Can Environmental Performance and Targets Signal True Sustainability Advancements? An Evaluation Framework with Evidence from Polluting Industries [J]. Journal of Sustainability Research. 2025; 7; (4). - .

文献评论

相关学者

相关机构