energies

Article
The Impact of Carbon Disclosure on Financial Performance
under Low Carbon Constraints
Wenting Lu, Naiping Zhu * and Jing Zhang

School of Finance & Economics, JiangSu University, No. 301 Xuefu Road, Jingkou District,
Zhenjiang 212013, China; 2112019002@stmail.ujs.edu.cn (W.L.); jzhang2015@163.com (J.Z.)
* Correspondence: npzhu@ujs.edu.cn

Abstract: In the context of low-carbon constrained development, in order to avoid the risk brought
by climate change, more and more companies choose to disclose carbon information, respond to the
national policy of carbon emission reduction and focus on the sustainable development of enterprises.
This paper will investigate the impact of carbon disclosure on financial performance based on the
2011–2018 CDP report, taking the Fortune 500 companies as a sample. The study finds that for carbon-
intensive industries, carbon disclosure cannot significantly contribute to the improvement of financial
performance in the current period, but for carbon-non-intensive industries, carbon disclosure can
significantly contribute to the improvement of financial performance in the current period, and the
positive impact of carbon disclosure on financial performance in the current period can be extended
to the next period. Finally, based on the findings of the empirical study, this paper puts forward
policy recommendations for the construction of China’s carbon disclosure system.

Keywords: fortune 500; carbon disclosure; financial performance







Citation: Lu, W.; Zhu, N.; Zhang, J.

The Impact of Carbon Disclosure on 1. Introduction
Financial Performance under Low Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have become one of the primary threats to the
Carbon Constraints. Energies 2021, 14,
existence of life on earth. The excessive GHGs in the earth’s atmosphere led to undesirable
4126. https://doi.org/10.3390/
consequences in the ecosystem, creating global warming or climate change (Liu et al.
en14144126
Sand) [1,2]. Since 1880, the global average temperature has risen by 0.85 ◦ C according to
the data from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [3]. As the Climate
Academic Editor: Nuno Carlos Leitão
Change 2013 predicted, by 2100, the world will face a rise of the ground temperature and
an increase in carbon dioxide concentration, and the sea level will rise by 26 to 81 cm. The
Received: 5 May 2021
Accepted: 5 July 2021
main reason for climate warming is most likely (95%) that we did not aggressively reduce
Published: 8 July 2021
carbon emissions. By the end of this century, global warming will exceed 2 ◦ C, or may
exceed 4 ◦ C according to the Climate Change 2013 report [3]. At present, according to the
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) special report on the impacts of global
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
warming of 1.5 ◦ C, the control of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has become a necessary
published maps and institutional affil- condition for companies to achieve sustainable development and it is important to limit
iations. the global warming of 1.5 ◦ C [4] and therefore, there is an increasing demand for carbon
disclosure in society.
More and more climate events dominate the headlines of the media, and they have a
major impact on the economic development of various countries all over the world. On
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
15 January 2020, the World Economic Forum (WEF) released the Global Risks Report 2020.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
The report presents the main risks the world facing in the coming year, pointing out that
This article is an open access article
all five major global risks in 2020 are environmental risks, while climate change is the
distributed under the terms and biggest risk facing the world in 2020 [5]. In this context, a series of new concepts and
conditions of the Creative Commons policies such as “low-carbon economy”, “low-carbon development” and “low-carbon city”
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// have emerged. Low-Carbon Economy has attracted people’s attention in recent years. It is
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ a business model based on low energy consumption, low pollution, and low emissions,
4.0/). which will guide the “Fourth Industrial Revolution”, protect the existence of non-renewable

Energies 2021, 14, 4126. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14144126 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2021, 14, 4126 2 of 19

energy, prevent global warming, realize sustainable economic development, and at the
same time create a healthy and green home for people.
On 12 December 2015, 195 countries and the European Union unanimously agreed
to adopt the “Paris Agreement” at the Paris Climate Change Conference, opening a new
chapter for taking action on global climate change. In order to control carbon emissions,
countries around the world have committed to emission reduction targets and have formu-
lated policies and regulations to regulate and guide the carbon emission reduction behavior
of enterprises. It has become an inevitable choice to take a low-carbon economy. As a
consequence of stakeholders starting exerting started exerting pressure on corporations to
decrease their GHG emissions, firms are now likely to play a vital role in reducing their
GHG emissions and contributing to stabilizing climate change (Luo) [6]. In recent years,
firms have been asked to disseminate information about climate change related activities,
also referred to as carbon disclosures, to satisfy the concerns of relevant stakeholders
(Li et al., Meng et al.) [7,8]. Under the emission reduction pressures in the world, China
should need to change the current high energy-consuming and high-pollution development
model, accelerate the adjustment of economic structure, promote technological progress,
and improve energy efficiency [9]. Although various countries have introduced various
laws and regulations on carbon emissions and policies to encourage carbon emission
reduction, and researchers have also realized the importance of carbon disclosure, there
are still some people who question the authenticity of this information because of the
inherent uncertainty between measurement of carbon emissions and carbon emissions
reduction. In the case of internationally recognized standards, CDP (Carbon Disclosure
Project) adopts a unique set of rules that all participating companies must follow, which
greatly reduces the opportunity for managers to manipulate carbon data. Liu believes
that carbon information disclosure by enterprises is an effective way to improve social
awareness of low carbon and environmental protection, and a good carbon information
disclosure mechanism helps internal and external stakeholders to have a better under-
standing of corporate low carbon governance and strengthen the carbon regulation of
government departments [10]. The study of carbon disclosure has been gaining increasing
importance in recent years to help firms communicate their climate change activities to
their stakeholders through environment disclosures (Hahn et al., Uyar et al.) [11,12]. With
the deepening of low-carbon economy in China, the demand for carbon information from
the market and corporate stakeholders is increasing. The relationship between the quality
of carbon information and the performance of enterprises can be explored by evaluating
the carbon information disclosed by enterprises. The relationship between the quality of
carbon information disclosed by enterprises and their own performance is particularly
important to motivate enterprises to disclose their carbon information. To this end, this
paper will investigate the impact of carbon disclosure on financial performance based on
the 2011–2018 CDP report, taking the Fortune 500 companies as a sample. Based on existing
research perspectives, this paper uses the scoring index and carbon emission data from
the CDP report, as well as the financial data of enterprises to investigate the relationship
between carbon disclosure and financial performance of carbon-intensive companies and
carbon-non-intensive companies. This paper takes voluntary disclosure theory, legitimacy
theory, stakeholder interest theory, signaling theory, and sustainable development theory
as its pillars, and applies them to the research fields of carbon disclosure and financial
performance, and conducts a profound analysis on the theoretical level.
The paper deepens the understanding of carbon disclosure by enterprises from the
theoretical level, which has certain significance for the practice of carbon disclosure of
Chinese enterprises, and also promotes the development of empirical research related to
carbon disclosure. At the same time, the empirical research in this paper also makes up for
the deficiencies of existing research as few scholars have studied whether the significant
impact of carbon disclosure on financial performance is deferred to the next period and
few scholars have conducted comparative analysis of for carbon-intensive industries and
carbon-non-intensive industries. Therefore, this research will investigate the impact of
Energies 2021, 14, 4126 3 of 19

carbon disclosure on current financial performance for carbon-intensive industries and

carbon-non-intensive industries, and on this basis, the intertemporal impact of carbon
disclosure on financial performance.

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Hypotheses

2.1. Literature Review
Many scholars have found that, as both sides of a transaction, companies disclose
carbon information so that stakeholders can have sufficient information to facilitate the
formation of the transaction and promote the enhancement of corporate value. The earliest
environmental information study had been included in social responsibility information to
conduct relevant studies and environmental information disclosure were mostly at the level
of theoretical and descriptive analysis (Mobley; Gray et al.) [13,14]. Friedman conducted
a study on the relationship between social responsibility and corporate performance [15].
With the research on the determinants of social responsibility and environmental infor-
mation disclosure (Deegan, Gordon; Karim et al.) [16,17] and the continuous research
on economic consequences and market reactions (Dhaliwal et al.; Lys et al.) [18,19]. In
recent years, the research on social responsibility information and environmental infor-
mation disclosure has also been refined. Scholars have been studying the disclosure of
social responsibility information and environmental information from internal and external
perspectives, and from the perspective of report forensics respectively [20].
Most of the early studies on the relationship between carbon disclosure and corporate
financial performance showed a negative relationship, validating the views of traditional
economists and neoclassical schools. Hassel combined research with the cost-related
theory and pointed out that the cost of disclosing carbon information in the process of
maintaining the legitimacy of enterprises is greater than the benefit, and the more detailed
and comprehensive the carbon information disclosure, the more costly it is, the carbon
information disclosure will negatively affect the enterprise’s interest goal, and the quality
of disclosure is negatively related to the enterprise’s value. There is a negative relationship
between disclosure quality and corporate value, and carbon information disclosure will
reduce the financial performance of enterprises [21]. Chapple et al. also verified that the
expensive cost of carbon disclosure by firms to gain legitimacy outweighs the benefits
of the act, and that corporate carbon management practices can cause changes in firm
value [22]. Griffin et al. found that due to the high cost of disclosure, carbon information
disclosure does not bring economic benefits to firms or even reduces their profitability [23].
According to the theory of information asymmetry, carbon information is an impor-
tant non-financial information for investors’ decision making, and high-quality carbon
information disclosure can effectively improve the situation of information disadvantage
for investors. The disclosure of high-quality carbon information can effectively improve
the situation that investors are at an information disadvantage, and to a certain extent
can reduce the risk faced by investors and protect the interests of investors. At the same
time, enterprises can get the necessary resources for production and operation. Proactive
disclosure of carbon information is the most important way for companies to gain access
to stakeholders and achieve their sustainable development. Saka and Oshika pointed
out that carbon information disclosure has a positive impact on market-based financial
performance [24]. Velte et al. found that carbon performance was significantly associ-
ated with carbon disclosure, and carbon information disclosure can reduce information
asymmetry, while carbon information disclosure can increase financial performance [25].
Although carrying out carbon emission reduction and disclosing carbon information will
incur certain costs, failure to fulfill carbon emission reduction obligations and disclose
related information may save enterprises some costs in the short term, but in the long
term development will generate more explicit or implicit costs, affect the efficiency of
resource allocation of enterprises, cause implicit harm to enterprises, which in turn affects
their competitiveness and hinders the improvement of enterprise value and performance.
Lemma et al. stated that firms can meet consumer expectations by reducing their carbon
Energies 2021, 14, 4126 4 of 19

footprint and can reasonably expect that after meeting consumer expectations company
can obtain from existing or potential customers [26]. Lueg state that disclosure hardly
affects financial performance by changing free cash flow, but the increase in transparency
from high quality disclosure can reduce information asymmetry between stakeholders and
impact on financial performance by reducing risk [27].
According to signaling theory, carbon information disclosure can alleviate the pressure
that companies may face and increase stakeholders’ corporate recognition and support,
which in turn promotes financial performance. Companies that are aware of the environ-
mental crisis, when they are aware of the environmental crisis, they will immediately take
measures to minimize the risk of environmental pollution and protect their reputation
and image by disclosing information. This can reduce financial risk to a certain extent.
Wegener empirically examined the impact of corporate disclosure of carbon information on
the stock market based on CDP reports of Canadian companies and found that voluntary
disclosure of carbon information increased shareholder motivation and reduced transac-
tion costs, which in turn had a positive impact on stock market value [28]. Ziegler et al.
and Schiager found that for U.S. energy companies, in response to pressure from global
warming agencies to gain legitimacy, companies actively disclose their efforts to respond to
climate change, enhance their corporate image and thus significantly improve their stock
performance [29,30]. Saka and Oshika studied the relationship between carbon disclosure
and equity market value of more than 1000 companies in Japan based on circumventing
sampling bias and endogeneity issues and found that their equity market value increases
as the content of carbon disclosure increases [24]. Ganda selected a sample of South African
companies as a study and examined the impact of carbon emission reporting on financial
value and found that carbon disclosure was positively correlated with accounting-based in-
dicator Return on Assets (ROA) in most cases but negatively correlated with market-based
indicator Market Value Added (MVA) by conducting panel regressions on the data of the
sample companies from 2010–2015 [31]. Iskandar and Fran found that carbon emissions
disclosure significantly negatively affects firm value and corporate social responsibility
disclosure significantly positively affects firm value [32]. Siddique et al. examined how
carbon performance affects carbon disclosure and how carbon disclosure affects finan-
cial performance and the results showed that carbon disclosure positively affects carbon
performance, consistent with the signaling theory. It also showed that carbon disclosure
negatively affects financial performance in the short-term, and positively affects financial
performance in the long-term [33].
Some scholars have studied the possible economic impact of carbon information dis-
closure from the perspective of corporate governance. Carbon information disclosure is a
rational choice for firms, and Schiager and Haukvik selected Nordic listed companies in
the CDP report as the research object and studied the mechanism of carbon information
disclosure affecting company value from both accounting and marketing perspectives,
respectively, and found that carbon information disclosure by listed companies can enhance
corporate value [30]. Borghei et al. analyzed the annual reports of Australian firms and
found that the return on corporate assets increased in the year following carbon infor-
mation disclosure, noting that carbon information disclosure positively affects corporate
financial performance [34]. Brouwers et al. stated that carbon performance and information
disclosure have a positive impact on corporate financial performance in the long run [35].
Based on the perspective of environmental information disclosure, many scholars’
studies show that there is a positive relationship between environmental information
disclosure and financial performance of enterprises. Freedman and Jaggi found that envi-
ronmental disclosure in the petroleum industry shows a significant positive relationship
with financial performance [36]. Murray et al. separated environmental information from
social responsibility information in a separate study and found a positive relationship
between the quality of environmental disclosure of many UK firms and their contem-
poraneous returns [37]. Anderson et al. concluded similarly that companies with good
business performance have a correspondingly higher quality of environmental information
Energies 2021, 14, 4126 5 of 19

disclosure [38]. Stanwick and Stanwick studied 469 listed companies in the 1994 Forbes 500
and found that the financial performance of the different groupings of high medium, low
had different effects on the response to the environment, with high financial performance
companies having a higher incidence of environmental policies and/or environmental
commitments compared to low financial performance companies, while medium financial
performance companies had the highest level of environmental policies and/or environ-
mental commitments [39]. Nor et al. showed through empirical studies that there is a
mixed result between the behavior of environmental disclosure and financial performance,
and that environmental disclosure is significantly related to profitability [40].
Based on carbon disclosure perspective, Luo et al. investigated the actions of Fortune
500 companies in terms of carbon disclosure strategies in response to climate change
challenges based on a 2009 report provided by Fortune 500 companies to the Carbon
Disclosure Project (CDP), and found that economic pressures were significantly associated
with the decision to disclose carbon [41]. Luo et al. also selected a sample of 2045 large
firms from 15 countries and representing different industries, based on the reports provided
by these firms to the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) in 2009, using profitability, leverage
and growth as indicators of resource availability and the extent of firm participation in
the CDP as indicators of the propensity to disclose carbon and conducting an empirical
study for developing and developed countries, respectively. The study found that the
propensity to disclose carbon is correlated with the indicator of resource availability and
that this relationship is more significant in developing countries, suggesting that one of the
reasons for the lack of committed carbon reductions and disclosure in these countries is the
shortage of resources [42]. Matsumura et al. examined the impact of carbon emissions and
voluntary disclosure of carbon emissions on firm value based on data on carbon emissions
voluntarily disclosed by S&P500 companies to CDP (Carbon Disclosure Project) from 2006
to 2008. The study showed a negative correlation between carbon emissions and firm
value [43]. Zhao and Li based on the data of Chinese listed companies, scored the quality
of carbon emission information content and concluded that the return on net assets was
positively related to the quality of carbon information disclosure [44].Zhao and Yan took
the listed companies in the heavy polluting industry in the 2008–2011 China CDP report as
a sample and found that the carbon disclosure level of the selected sample companies was
significantly positively correlated with financial performance [45]. Li and Shi divided the
carbon information disclosure quality evaluation index into 10 dimensions to score and
explore the correlation between the carbon disclosure quality and financial performance.
The study found that the higher the quality of carbon information disclosure, the higher
the financial performance and there is intertemporal in this impact, but the intertemporal
impact has a downward trend year by year [46]. Ganda based on the annual carbon
emission reports of South African companies from 2010–2015, using panel regression, the
results of the study indicate that carbon disclosure is positively related to ROA (return
on assets) but negatively related to MVA (market value added) [31]. Zhu conducted the
study from the perspective of financial management, analyzed the possible influence of
carbon tax policy on green financial performance, green financial activities, green financial
accounting and financial information disclosure of microeconomic entity power companies
based on specific cases [47]. Piesiewicz and Ciechan-Kujawa (2021) conducted the study
on 57 published integrated reports of listed companies in Poland, contributed to the
integrated reporting examination by identifying quantitative and qualitative gaps when
applying Integrated Reporting standards and found insignificant differences in the analysis
of completeness of disclosures in performance [48].
Most of the national scholars’ explorations on the economic consequences of carbon
information disclosure have gathered in the aspects of carbon information disclosure and
corporate value, cost of capital, and decision usefulness. The discussion on how the level of
carbon information disclosure affects financial performance is relatively lacking, and more
often explores the relationship between the role of environmental information disclosure
and social responsibility information disclosure on financial performance. In addition, the
Energies 2021, 14, 4126 6 of 19

findings of the current available studies are widely divergent, with positive, negative, and
uncorrelated results.
Frost found from an empirical analysis of 60 Australian firms, mainly in extractive
services, that better performing firms are willing to disclose more environmental infor-
mation than poorer performing firms [49]. Clakson et al. chose two different measures of
firm performance, and the empirical results both indicate that environmental information
disclosure has a positive effect on firm performance [50]. Al-Tuwaijri et al. found a positive
relationship between environmental performance, environmental information disclosure
and firm performance by taking environmental performance into account [51]. Jenkins and
Yakovleva found a positive effect between the level of social responsibility disclosure and
corporate value for a sample of ten global mining companies [52].
In contrast, there are some scholars have shown a negative or no correlation between
environmental disclosure and financial performance of firms. Freedman and Jaggi ex-
plored the relationship between the level of pollution disclosure, pollution performance
and economic performance of firms in highly polluting industries, and found that for
the total sample, there was no correlation between their level of pollution disclosure and
economic performance. While the results of the subsample showed that large compa-
nies with poor economic performance provided the most detailed pollution information,
for smaller firms there was no correlation between economic performance and pollution
disclosure [53]. Richardson and Welker used a sample of Canadian companies from 1990–
1992, found a significant positive relationship between social disclosure and the cost of
equity capital, a positive relationship that was mitigated among companies with better
financial performance, where companies may will be financially penalized to some ex-
tent for having disclosed socially responsible information [54]. The findings of Johnson
suggested that a firm’s illegal or irresponsible attitude will hurt it financially and have a
negative impact on the firm’s financial performance, however, merely complying with legal
requirements or undertaking sporadic social responsibility will not bring any financial
advantage to the firm [55]. Stanny and Ely found that there was no significant correlation
between carbon disclosure and investment, and carbon disclosure did not promote com-
pany performance [56]. Hsu and Wang find that because of the high cost of environmental
responsibility, corporate disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions does not produce timely
economic benefits and may reduce corporate competitiveness [57]. Plumlee et al. studied
heavy polluting industries and general industries separately, and the empirical results
showed that the polluting industries are negatively related to the level of environmental
information disclosure and the financial performance of firms, while general industries
show a positive relationship [58].
By sorting out and summarizing the findings of previous studies mentioned above, it
can be found that although the number of literatures on financial performance research from
the perspective of environmental information disclosure is relatively large, scholars still
cannot reach a consistent research conclusion. On the one hand, it is because scholars choose
different methods for environmental information disclosure indicators; on the other hand,
given the different research objects selected, the research results also differ, for example,
carbon intensive industries and carbon non-intensive industries cannot be confused due to
different industry characteristics and different pressure in terms of regulation.
The impact on financial performance from the perspective of carbon information disclosure
is rarely studied. There are some scholars pay more attention to carbon information
disclosure, but most of the studies are on the impact factors related to carbon information
disclosure, and few empirical studies involve the impact on current financial performance
and whether it is deferred to the next period. Moreover, in previous studies, many scholars
have scored carbon information disclosure based on whether to disclose or the number
of disclosures, which is highly subjective. Given that the Carbon Disclosure Project
(CDP) benefits from the guidance of PricewaterhouseCoopers, its scoring system is more
comprehensive and more authoritative, and the data also has stronger depth and breadth.
Energies 2021, 14, 4126 7 of 19

Therefore, this paper will use the Carbon Disclosure Leader Index published by CDP as a
proxy variable for carbon disclosure in CDP reports.

2.2. Theoretical Hypothesis

Based on the voluntary disclosure theory, the cost and the credibility of the disclosed
information are worth more notice since they are the private information that the company
chooses to publish. Management tends to reveal information that is beneficial to increase the
corporate value (e.g., lower greenhouse gas emissions) and conceal unfavorable information
that reduces the corporate value (e.g., the failure to meet emission reduction target), and
rational managers tend to hide unfavorable information disclosure. The value growth effect
of sustainability disclosure has been proposed in many scholars’ studies (Dhaliwal et al.;
Clarkson et al.; De Villiers, Marques) [59–61]. In addition, according to the signaling theory,
good information promotes the development of the enterprise and will bring potential
economic benefits, however, bad news will hinder the development of the enterprise and is
likely to reduce the financial performance of the firm in the current period. Therefore, based
on the perspective of voluntary disclosure theory and signaling theory, this paper argues
that enterprises with high quality of carbon disclosure have better financial performance.
In addition, since ten industries are covered in the sample companies selected in
this paper, including energy industry, industrial industry, materials industry, consumer
discretionary industry, consumer staples industry, financial industry, health care industry,
information technology industry, telecommunications service industry, and public utilities
industry. Given that carbon-intensive industries such as energy, industry, and materials
face higher risks in terms of energy costs, climate change response, energy saving and
emission reduction, they are more cautious in disclosing relevant data and take a relatively
conservative stance on carbon disclosure. While for industries such as information tech-
nology and finance, the risk associated with data disclosure are relatively low, and they
are more proactive in their own carbon disclosure and more confident in carbon emission
reduction. Therefore, this paper combines the approach of Clarkson (2008) [50] and He [62]
to divide the industry categories into two categories, namely, carbon-intensive industries
(energy, industry, material industries, utilities) and non-carbon-intensive industries (the
remaining six industries). This leads to hypotheses 1 and 2.
Hypotheses 1 (H1). In carbon-intensive industries, carbon disclosure can contribute to the
improvement of the company’s current financial performance.
Hypotheses 2 (H2). In non-carbon-intensive industries, carbon disclosure can contribute to the
improvement of the company’s current financial performance.
According to the signaling theory, information utilizers such as management have a
time process of absorbing, thinking, and reflecting on receiving information until deciding.
During this period, the investor must measure whether the identified information is useful,
and if it is, then the investor needs to distinguish whether the information conveys a signal
that is beneficial to the investment or not, and finally make a corresponding response.
In addition, according to the stakeholder theory, not only the resource environment of
the enterprise itself must be considered in the process, but also the opinions of other
stakeholders at the moment. Therefore, the significant impact of carbon disclosure on the
current period’s financial performance, regardless of the industry, is likely not to happen
overnight and this significant impact will be deferred to the next period. So, based on
signaling theory and stake-holder theory, this paper proposes the following hypothesis 3.
Hypotheses 3 (H3). On the premise that carbon disclosure has a significant impact on the
company’s current financial performance, it will be extended to the next period.
Energies 2021, 14, 4126 8 of 19

3. Materials and Model Design

3.1. Sample Selection and Data Sources
The samples selected for this study are the Fortune 500 companies involved in the
CDP report from 2011–2018 because the publicly available data of Carbon Disclosure
Leadership Index (CDLI) are only from 2011–2018, and the carbon disclosure behaviors
of these companies are still at the forefront of the times as of now, which can help us to
provide a basis for the empirical research by providing the Carbon Disclosure Leadership
Index (CDLI) and carbon emissions date. In addition, in order to study the current and
intertemporal impact of carbon disclosure on financial performance, the relevant financial
performance data used in this article come from 2011–2018. The carbon disclosure data
used in this article are all sourced from the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), which are
aggregated and processed by the CDP project team based on the corporate response
data collected online. The financial data used come from Wind Information, which are all
collected and filtered manually. Companies without CDLI scores and those with incomplete
or discontinuous financial data were excluded, there are 94 remaining companies with
a total of 752 samples. The sample companies involve 10 different industries, and all
industries are divided into two categories, namely, carbon-intensive industries (denoted as
IND = 1) and non-carbon-intensive industries (denoted as IND = 0).

3.2. Variable Selection

3.2.1. Measurement of Financial Performance
There are many indicators of financial performance, such as return on assets (ROA),
earnings per share (EPS), return on equity (ROE), Z-score proposed by Edward Altman,
return on investment (ROI) and profit margin. Among them, ROA and ROE are financial
performance indicators recognized by scholars all over the world. Based on previous
research, this paper selects the return on assets (ROA) as a substitute variable for financial
performance. This indicator can reflect the company’s financial performance at an overall
level, and its high or low level can directly reflect the company’s financial status, will not
be affected by the company’s extraordinary events, and has the characteristics of being
objective, universal, and easy to obtain. At the same time, ROA is also one of the most
concerned financial indicators of corporate stakeholders and it has good comparability.

3.2.2. Measurement of Carbon Disclosure

Since the focus of our study is carbon, we use the Carbon Disclosure Leader Index
(CDLI) to measure the degree or level of carbon disclosure based on content analysis. Most
of the questions in the CDP questionnaire are two-choice questions. Participants who
provided truthful information gave a “yes” (count as 1 point) or “no” (count as 0 point)
answer, such as whether the company has an environmental committee.
The design and development of CDLI have received professional guidance from
Pricewaterhouse Coopers, which is better than self-designed methods. Its scores can reflect
the depth and breadth of corporate carbon information. By using a content analysis method
that facilitates the analysis and interpretation of relevance, materiality, and substance of
disclosure rather than simply the number of counts and the extend of disclosure, the CDLI
score has also received widespread support at present.

3.2.3. Measurement of Financial Performance

Other control variables include net profit margin, debt to asset ratio, enterprise scale,
growth rate of total operating income, etc. The specific variables are shown in Table 1:
Energies 2021, 14, 4126 9 of 19

Table 1. Variable design.

Variable Type Variable Name Symbol Description

Dependent Variable Return on Assets ROA Return on Assets = Net Income/Total Assets
Independent Variable Carbon Disclosure CDLI Carbon Disclosure Leader Index
Net Profit Margin NPM Net Profit Margin = Net Profit/Sales Revenue
Debt to Asset Ratio LEV Debt to Asset Ratio = Debt/Total Assets
Enterprise Scale SIZE Enterprise Scale = lnTotal Assets
Control Variable Growth Rate of Total Operating Income =
Growth Rate of Total (Current Period Gross Operating Income
GR
Operating Income – Previous Period Gross Operating Income)
/Current Period Gross Operating Income
Whether belongs to carbon 1 for carbon-intensive industries and 0 for
Grouping Variable IND
intensive industry non-carbon-intensive industries

3.3. Regression Model Setting

This paper investigates the impact of carbon disclosure on financial performance in
carbon-intensive industries and non-carbon-intensive industries. The financial performance
of the current period and the next period are used as explanatory variable and carbon
disclosure is used as the explanatory variables. Stata16.0 is used as the multivariate
statistical analysis software for this paper, and the following two multiple regression
models are established:

ROAt = a0 + a1CDLIt + a2NPMt + a3LEVt + a4SIZEt + a5GRt + ε. (1)

ROAt + 1 = a0 + a1CDLIt + a2NPMt + a3LEVt + a4SIZEt + a5GRt + ε (2)

Among them, Model 1 is used to investigate the impact of carbon disclosure on
financial performance in the current period, and Model 2 is used to study the impact of
carbon disclosure on financial performance in the next period when carbon disclosure has
a significant impact on the current period financial performance. Both models are suitable
for empirical analysis of carbon-intensive industries, non-carbon-intensive industries, and
full samples.

4. Empirical Results and Analysis

4.1. Descriptive Statistics
4.1.1. Descriptive Statistical Analysis of the Full Sample
There are 752 samples selected in this article, including 10 industry categories. The
specific industry distribution is shown in Table 2 below:

Table 2. Classification of industries to which the full sample belongs.

Category Quantity Proportion

Energy 112 14.89%
Industrial 80 10.64%
Materials 88 11.70%
Public Utilities 40 5.32%
Consumer Discretionary 40 5.32%
Consumer staples 56 7.45%
Finance 160 21.28%
Health Care 80 10.64%
Information Technology 64 8.51%
Telecommunication services 32 4.26%
Total 752 100%
Energies 2021, 14, 4126 10 of 19

As can be seen from Table 2 that the financial industry, energy industry, material indus-
try, industrial industry, and health care industry account for a large proportion of the entire
sample. The proportions are 21.28%, 14.89%, 11.70%, 10.64%, and 10.64%, respectively.
Among them, there are 320 sub-samples of carbon-intensive industries (energy, materials,
industrial and public utilities), accounting for a total of 42.55%. Non-carbon-intensive
industries (consumer discretionary, consumer staples, finance, health care, information
technology, telecommunications services) has a total of 432 sub-samples, accounting for a
total of 57.45%.
Table 3 presents the minimum, maximum, average, and standard deviation of all
variables in the full sample of 752. The average return on assets (ROA) is 0.0883, and the
standard deviation is 0.0741, indicating that the difference in the return on assets in the
entire sample is not significant. The minimum value of carbon disclosure (CDLI) is 25, the
maximum value is 100, the average value is 80.8546, and the standard deviation is 14.1486,
indicating that there are large differences in carbon disclosure in the entire sample.

Table 3. Descriptive statistical analysis of the full sample variables.

Standard
Minimum Maximum Average Value
Deviation
ROA −0.2122 0.3344 0.0883 0.0741
CDLI 25.0000 100.0000 80.8546 14.1486
NPM −0.8475 0.4107 0.1102 0.1162
LEV 0.1578 0.9747 0.6472 0.2057
SIZE 22.4130 28.6619 25.1815 1.4681
GR −0.3216 2.9728 0.0913 0.2342

4.1.2. Descriptive Statistical Analysis of Sub-Samples

Table 4 presents the minimum, maximum, average, and standard deviation of all
variables in the carbon-intensive industries. The number of samples in this group is 320.
The minimum value of return on assets (ROA) is −0.2122 and the maximum value is
0.3344. The minimum value of carbon disclosure (CDLI) is 34, the maximum value is 99,
the average value is 79.1833, and the standard deviation is 14.3732, indicating that the
quality of carbon disclosure varies among companies.

Table 4. Descriptive statistical analysis of variables (IND = 1).

Minimum Maximum Average Value Standard Deviation

ROA −0.2122 0.3344 0.0938 0.0698
CDLI 34.0000 99.0000 79.1833 14.3732
NPM −0.8475 0.4107 0.0841 0.1443
LEV 0.2654 0.9549 0.5741 0.1404
SIZE 23.1833 27.2987 24.7454 0.8002
GR −0.3216 2.9728 0.1224 0.3147

Table 5 presents the minimum, maximum, average, and standard deviation of all
variables in non-carbon-intensive industries. The number of samples in this group is
432. The minimum return on assets (ROA) is −0.0928 and the maximum is 0.3220. The
minimum carbon disclosure (CDLI) is 25, the maximum is 100, the average is 82.0926,
and the standard deviation is 13.8948, indicating that the quality of carbon disclosure also
varies among non-carbon-intensive industries.
Energies 2021, 14, 4126 11 of 19

Table 5. Descriptive statistical analysis of variables (IND = 0).

Minimum Maximum Average Value Standard Deviation

ROA −0.0928 0.3220 0.0843 0.0771
CDLI 25.0000 100.0000 82.0926 13.8948
NPM −0.1051 0.3551 0.1295 0.0855
LEV 0.1578 0.9747 0.7013 0.2287
SIZE 22.4130 28.6619 25.5046 1.7441
GR −0.2643 1.0015 0.0683 0.1459

4.1.3. Mean Difference

Comparing the statistical values of the main variables in carbon-intensive industries
and carbon-non-intensive industries, it can be seen from Table 6 that the average return
on assets (ROA) are 0.0938 and 0.0843, with the standard deviations of 0.0698 and 0.0771,
respectively. And the value of return on assets in the two groups of industries do not differ
significantly. The mean values of carbon disclosure (CDLI) are 79.1833 and 82.0926, re-
spectively, indicating that the average quality of carbon disclosure in non-carbon-intensive
industries is higher, with the standard deviations of 14.37332 13.8948, respectively. To
further test whether the main variables are significantly different among different groups
are, this paper adopts mean difference analysis to identify.

Table 6. Descriptive statistics for grouping of main variables.

IND N Average Standard Deviation Standard Error of Mean

1 320 0.0938 0.0698 0.0064
ROA
0 432 0.0843 0.0771 0.0061
1 320 79.1833 14.3732 1.3121
CDLI
0 432 82.0926 13.8948 1.0917

As can be seen from Table 7 that the significance probability (Sig.) of the return
on assets (ROA) is 0.2800, that is, there is no significant difference in ROA between the
two sub-samples. The carbon disclosure (CDLI) has the significance probability (Sig.)
of is 0.0880, which means there is a significant difference in CDLI between the two sub-
samples. Therefore, based on the above analysis, it is theoretical and scientific to group
carbon-intensive industries (IND = 1) and non-carbon-intensive industries (IND = 0)
for discussion.

Table 7. Comparison of differences in means between sub-samples.

IND = 1 IND = 0 Difference in Mean t Sig.

ROA 0.0938 0.0843 0.0095 1.08 0.2800
CDLI 79.1833 82.0926 −2.9093 −1.71 0.0880
Note: t-test using independent samples.

4.2. Correlation Analysis between Carbon Disclosure and Current Financial Performance
Tables 8 and 9 respectively present the correlation coefficients between the variables
of carbon-intensive industries and carbon-non-intensive industries. Comparing the cor-
relation coefficients in the two tables, it is found that the positive and negative signs of
the correlation coefficients are consistent and do not differ significantly. In addition, the
correlation coefficients between the control variables of debt to asset ratio (LEV) and en-
terprise scale (SIZE) are close to 0.5 in Table 8 and exceed 0.5 in Table 9. However, the
multicollinearity results show that the VIF values of LEV and SIZE in Table 8 are 1.14 and
1.22, respectively, and the VIF values of LEV and SIZE in Table 9 are 2.33 and 2.28, respec-
tively, which are far less than 10. This indicates that there is no problem of multicollinearity
in Model 1.
Energies 2021, 14, 4126 12 of 19

Table 8. Correlation analysis between variables (IND = 1).

ROA CD NPM LEV SIZE GR

ROA 1
CDLI −0.1563 1
NPM 0.6409 ** −0.1401 1
LEV −0.3000 ** 0.2527 ** −0.0694 1
SIZE −0.1645 0.0295 −0.0282 0.3438 ** 1
GR 0.2158 * −0.2912 ** 0.1346 −0.0175 0.0131 1
Note: * indicates that the two variables are significantly correlated at the 5% level, ** indicates that the two
variables are significantly correlated at the 1% level.

Table 9. Correlation analysis between variables (IND = 0).

ROA CD NPM LEV SIZE GR

ROA 1
CDLI −0.1889 * 1
NPM 0.4797 ** −0.2718 ** 1
LEV −0.5098 ** 0.2329 ** −0.2757 ** 1
SIZE −0.7362 ** 0.3399 ** −0.2357 ** 0.7357 ** 1
GR 0.1338 −0.0356 0.1049 −0.2178 ** −0.1723 * 1
Note: * indicates that the two variables are significantly correlated at the 5% level, ** indicates that the two variables
are significantly correlated at the 1% level. Numbered lists can be added as follows.

4.3. Regression Analysis

4.3.1. Sub-Sample Regression Analysis
(1) The Impact of Carbon Disclosure on Current Financial Performance
The results of the regression analysis with carbon disclosure (CDLI) as the explanatory
variable are presented in Tables 10 and 11 for the carbon-intensive and non-carbon-intensive
industries, respectively.
Tables 10 and 11 respectively show the results of the regression analysis of carbon-
intensive industries and non-carbon-intensive industries with carbon disclosure (CDLI)
as the explanatory variable. The adjusted R2 values are 0.4761 and 0.6600, respectively,
indicating that the degree of explanation of the return on assets (ROA) of all independent
variables in the two samples is 47.61% and 66.00%, respectively. The p-value of Model 1 in
both sets of samples was 0.0000, indicating that Model 1 passed the significance test. In
the group with carbon-intensive industries, the coefficient of carbon disclosure (CDLI) is
0.0157, which is positive but does not pass the significance test. Therefore, the hypothesis
H1 has not been verified. However, in the group of non-carbon-intensive industries, the
coefficient of carbon disclosure (CDLI) is 0.0009 with a p-value of 0.0010, indicating a
significant correlation at the 1% level. Therefore, the hypothesis of H2 is verified.

Table 10. Regression analysis with CDLI as explanatory variable (IND = 1).

Variable Coefficient t-Value p-Value

CDLI 0.0157 0.48 0.6330
NPM 0.2940 *** 7.83 0.0000
LEV −0.1194 *** −2.68 0.0090
SIZE −0.00589 −0.86 0.3900
GR 0.03107 *** 3.26 0.0010
Constant term 0.26702 1.54 0.1270
Adjusted R2 0.4761
F−statistic of the model 15.18
Sig. 0.0000
Number of samples 320
Note: *** indicate that the two variables are significantly correlated at the 1% level.
Energies 2021, 14, 4126 13 of 19

Table 11. Regression analysis with CDLI as explanatory variable (IND = 0).

Variable Coefficient t−Value p−Value

CDLI 0.0009 *** 3.39 0.0010
NPM 0.3362 *** 6.50 0.0000
LEV 0.0529 * 1.75 0.0830
SIZE −0.0361 *** −8.08 0.0000
GR −0.0034 −0.13 0.8990
Constant term 0.8556 *** 9.47 0.0000
Adjusted R2 0.6600
F−statistic of the model 58.77
Sig. 0.0000
Number of samples 432
Note: *, *** indicate that the two variables are significantly correlated at the 10% and 1% level.

(2) The Intertemporal Impact of Carbon Disclosure on Financial Performance

It can be seen from the above that H2 has been verified, that is, in non−carbon−intensive
industries, carbon disclosure has a significant positive impact on current period financial
performance. Therefore, this paper will further investigate the intertemporal effects of vari-
ous explanatory variables on next period financial performance based on this hypothesis.
As can be seen from Table 12 that the coefficient of Carbon Disclosure (CDLI) is 0.0008
(slightly smaller than the coefficient of 0.0009 in Table 11), but its p−value is 0.0030, which
is significant at the 1% level, the same level of significance as in Table 11. Therefore, the
positive impact of carbon disclosure on financial performance can be extended to the next
period, and hypothesis H3 is thus verified.

Table 12. The intertemporal impact of carbon disclosure on financial performance (IND = 0).

Variable Coefficient t-Value p-Value

CDLI 0.0008 *** 2.99 0.0030
NPM 0.2644 *** 5.39 0.0000
LEV 0.0615 * 1.97 0.0510
SIZE −0.0367 *** −7.84 0.0000
GR −0.0229 −0.71 0.4810
Constant term 0.8768 *** 9.19 0.0000
Adjusted R2 0.6034
F-statistic of the
51.88
model
Sig. 0.0000
Number of samples 432
Note: *, *** indicate that the two variables are significantly correlated at the 10% and 1% level.

4.3.2. Full Sample Regression Analysis

In order to compare with the regression results of the sub−samples after grouping, the
regression analysis for the full sample is also conducted and the result is briefly summarized
in Table 13. From which it can be seen that, unlike the sub−sample companies, carbon
disclosure and financial performance are not significantly correlated for the full sample
companies, thus further verifying the necessity of group research as described above.

Table 13. Regression analysis for the full sample.

Model Number of Samples Sig. Adjusted R2 Variable Coefficient t-Value p-Value

Model 1 752 0.0000 0.5537 CDLI 0.0003 1.40 0.1630
Energies 2021, 14, 4126 14 of 19

4.4. Robustness Test

In this paper, the return on equity (ROE) is chosen as a substitute variable for financial
performance to do the robustness test. According to the classic DuPont analysis system,
it is known that ROE = ROA*1/(1−debt ratio), so the return on equity (ROE) and return
on assets (ROA) is relatively close, and the regression results are expected to be consistent
when the two are used as explanatory variables. The results of robustness test are shown
in Table 14.

Table 14. Robustness test results.

Variable Model 1 Model 2

IND = 1 IND = 0 IND = 0
0.0005 −0.0008 0.0023 **
CDLI
(0.83) (−0.23) (2.42)
0.5679 *** 0.8411 *** 0.7596 ***
NPM
(3.97) (4.62) (5.16)
0.5662 *** 0.8613 *** 0.8378 ***
LEV
(2.84) (5.17) (5.50)
−0.0287 ** −0.1236 *** −0.1387 ***
SIZE
(−2.05) (−6.99) (−6.68)
0.0346 ** −0.0154 −0.1250
GR
(2.11) (−0.22) (−1.47)
0.4468 2.7141 *** 2.8638 ***
Constant term
(1.37) (6.63) (6.88)
Adjusted R2 0.3764 0.2958 0.4827
F-statistic of the model 4.85 17.77 18.78
Sig. 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000
Number of samples 320 432 432
Note: **, *** indicate that the two variables are significantly correlated at the 5% and 1% level.

For carbon−intensive industries, when ROE is used as a surrogate variable for finan-
cial performance, the sign and significance level of the regression coefficient are almost
the same as when the return on assets (ROA) is used as the explained variable, that is,
although the regression coefficient of carbon disclosure (CDLI) is positive, it has not passed
the significance test, which is completely consistent with the regression analysis above.
In non−carbon−intensive industries, when ROE is used as a substitute variable for
financial performance, the regression coefficients of key variables are consistent with the
above regression results, but the significance level is slightly different. The regression
coefficient of carbon disclosure (CDLI) is still positive, but at a lower level of significance
compared to using return on assets (ROA) as a financial performance.
In addition, when ROEt + 1 is used as an alternative for the financial performance in
the model, the positive impact of carbon disclosure on financial performance will have a
significant contribution to financial performance in the next period and is significant at the
5% level.
In conclusion, when the return on equity (ROE) is used as a substitute variable for
financial performance, the analysis results of all the main variables of the model in this
article are still valid and pass the robustness test.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

Based on previous research and theoretical foundations, this paper combines the aver-
age and distribution characteristics of carbon disclosure and divides the sample enterprises
into two groups, namely carbon−intensive enterprises, and non−carbon−intensive enter-
prises, to investigate the impact of carbon disclosure on the current financial performance
and whether the significant impact on the current financial performance will be deferred
to the next period in these two groups of companies. As this article selects the Fortune
500 companies, which are of great concern to the public. Beside this, these companies
have made great contributions to environmental issues and can be regarded as leaders in
Energies 2021, 14, 4126 15 of 19

carbon disclosure. And they have a relatively comprehensive understanding of carbon

management, which they have implemented and integrated into their corporate culture,
providing practical experience for the implementation of carbon emission reduction to the
world. Based on the combination of theory and previous empirical research, this article
draws the following research conclusions.
In carbon−intensive industries, although carbon disclosure by the company can
promote the improvement of financial performance in the current period, the improvement
is small, and it does not pass the significance test. This indicates that the improvement
in the quality of carbon disclosure of carbon−intensive companies has a relatively small
impact on financial performance. The company has not been greatly rewarded for its
high−quality carbon disclosure behavior, and the impact of the carbon disclosure on their
current financial performance is still limited despite the high evaluation of their carbon
management from the public.
In non−carbon−intensive industries, the carbon disclosure of company can signifi-
cantly contribute to the improvement of financial performance in the current period. The
higher the quality of carbon disclosure, the better the financial performance of the company,
and the impact of carbon disclosure on current financial performance can be extended to
the next period. Through the analysis of carbon disclosure data, it can be seen that many
non−carbon−intensive companies actively respond to the development of low−carbon
economy. Taking the financial industry as an example, as a leader in carbon emission
reduction in this industry, they vigorously implement carbon strategies and advocate green
development of enterprises. Based on the conclusions, non−carbon−intensive industries
can get better financial performance with carbon disclosure and this impact will last to
the next period. However, in carbon−intensive industries, the improvement of financial
performance by discoursing carbon information is small. This can also how that despite
the disclosure of carbon information, based on the carbon−intensive characteristics, these
companies do not necessarily get better financial performance from disclosing carbon
information, which means that carbon−intensive industries also need to achieve the goal
of attracting stakeholders by developing low−carbon awareness and reducing carbon
emissions. For carbon−non−intensive industries, in order to obtain better financial perfor-
mance, they should continue to maintain the behavior of disclosing carbon information.
The paper has deepened the understanding of carbon disclosure by enterprises from
the theoretical level, which has certain significance for the practice of carbon disclosure of
Chinese enterprises, and also promotes the development of empirical research related to
carbon disclosure. At the same time, the empirical research in this paper also makes up for
the deficiencies of existing research as few scholars have studied whether the significant
impact of carbon disclosure on financial performance is deferred to the next period and
few scholars have conducted comparative analysis of for carbon−intensive industries
and carbon−non−intensive industries. Therefore, this research investigates the impact of
carbon disclosure on current financial performance for carbon−intensive industries and
carbon−non−intensive industries, and on this basis, the inter−temporal impact of carbon
disclosure on financial performance.
Since this paper takes the world’s top 500 enterprises as the research object, these
enterprises have already had a fairly high awareness of carbon management in terms of
carbon information disclosure, the conclusions obtained are not applicable to all enterprises
though. However, under the global trend of promoting low carbon development, the study
has certain guiding significance, and the Top 500 enterprises have played an exemplary role,
which is worth learning from for other countries’ enterprises such as China. To this end,
this paper proposes the following policy recommendations based on the above findings.
(1) Increase publicity and raise low carbon awareness.
Take China as an example, from the situation of the world’s top 500 and China’s
top 100 enterprises for CDP response, China’s top 100 enterprises are less conscious of
carbon information disclosure, which shows that for other Chinese enterprises, low carbon
awareness is quite weak and will seriously hinder China’s vision to achieve carbon emission
Energies 2021, 14, 4126 16 of 19

reduction. Low carbon awareness is the first thing that needs to be advocated, because only
by forming low carbon awareness can we take action to reduce carbon emissions and carry
out carbon management, achieve sustainable development of enterprises, jointly create a
green development atmosphere, avoid the risks brought about by climate change, seize the
opportunities of low carbon development, and be brave enough to take on the challenges
to achieve a virtuous cycle of low carbon economy.
(2) Improve laws and regulations and regulate carbon disclosure channels.
Laws and regulations are the basis for enterprises to regulate their behavior. In the
absence of sound laws and regulations, enterprises often pursue short−term interests at
the expense of the environment, which will cause serious damage to the environment in the
long run. Although public opinion, media attention, etc. will, to a certain extent, prompt
enterprises to disclose carbon information, but their roles are limited. Laws and regulations
are the boundaries that enterprises cannot cross, mandatory application of carbon emission
reduction targets or disclosure of carbon information to guide the behavior of enterprises
are more effective. In addition, the government should also increase the rewards for
enterprises that independently disclose carbon information and achieve the emission
reduction target or even exceed the emission reduction target, and formulate a standardized
incentive policy, while those that violate the relevant laws and regulations should be strictly
punished, so as to strengthen enterprises’ awareness of the initiative to disclose carbon
emissions and cultivate their sense of social responsibility in the legal system.
(3) Establish a unified carbon information disclosure system.
For example, at present, there is no unified carbon information disclosure system in
China. Although some enterprises are conscious of reducing their carbon emissions, the
accounting methods among enterprises are different and not comparable, and the evalua-
tion standards among enterprises are also different. The complex assessment procedures
and the lack of comparability, even with information lacking authenticity, will not only
confuse the judgment of corporate investors and mislead corporate investments, but also
discourage corporate compliance with the principles of low−carbon development. For
example, companies may reduce their carbon emission statistics by changing their carbon
emission accounting methods. Therefore, the government should gradually establish a uni-
fied carbon information disclosure system and develop a standard and unified accounting
method, so that every enterprise can have evidence to follow and evidence to rely on, and
investors and other relevant stakeholders can also benefit from it, so that every enterprise
can pay close attention to its own carbon emissions and lay the foundation for the national
carbon emission reduction target.
(4) Standardize the way of carbon information disclosure in CDP reports.
Because carbon information disclosure has shifted from a voluntary to a mandatory
requirement in many jurisdictions, the format and content of CDP reports could be con-
sidered to be formulated as a formal GHG statement. Based on our research analysis,
we observe that there is room for improvement in the current version of the CDP report.
For example, we believe that there should be industry−specific disclosure guidelines and
that there should be more information disclosure at the project level. In addition, com-
panies need to upgrade their accounting systems to match the current needs of the low
carbon economy.
As the paper mentioned before, although previous studies have been conducted to
find the relationship between carbon disclosure and financial performance, and the number
of literatures on financial performance research from the perspective of environmental
information disclosure is relatively large, scholars still cannot reach a consistent research
conclusion. One of the reasons for this situation can be attributed to the lack of a unified
carbon information disclosure index. If the above−mentioned suggestions are adopted,
the establishment of a unified carbon information disclosure system and standardization
of the carbon information disclosure method in the CDP report can effectively resolve this
problem. Coupled with the guidance and regulation of laws and regulations, companies
with higher low−carbon ceremonies will consciously and proactively disclose carbon infor-
Energies 2021, 14, 4126 17 of 19

mation in accordance with the normative model, which can also provide better indicator
choices for relevant research. Besides, on the basis of being able to obtain uniform and
standardized carbon information disclosure measurement indicators, scholars can choose
more different research subjects to study the relationship between carbon disclosure and
financial performance and. While at the same time, because of the consistency of indicators
measurement methods, the results of all these studies will become more comparable to pro-
vide the impact of carbon disclosure on financial performance among different industries
in the future.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, N.Z. and J.Z.; methodology, W.L. and N.Z.; software, J.Z.
and W.L.; validation, W.L. and J.Z.; formal analysis, J.Z. and W.L.; investigation, W.L.; resources, W.L.;
data curation, W.L. and J.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, W.L. and J.Z.; writing—review and
editing, W.L.; visualization, W.L. and J.Z.; supervision, N.Z.; project administration, N.Z.; funding
acquisition, N.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The carbon disclosure data used in this article are all sourced from the
Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), available at https://www.cdp.net/ (accessed on 15 June 2021). The
financial data used come from Wind Information, available at https://www.wind.com.cn/ (accessed
on 15 June 2021).
Acknowledgments: This work was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China (Grant
No. 20BGL099).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Liu, Y.; Zhou, Z.; Zhang, X.; Xu, X.; Chen, H.; Xiong, Z. Net global warming potential and greenhouse gas intensity from the
double rice system with integrated soil–crop system management: A three-year field study. Atmos. Environ. 2015, 116, 92–101.
[CrossRef]
2. Sands, F. The United Nations framework convention on climate change. Rev. Eur. Community Int. Environ. Law 1992, 1, 270.
[CrossRef]
3. Stocker, T.F.; Qin, D.; Plattner, G.-K.; Tignor, M.; Allen, S.K.; Boschung, J.; Nauels, A.; Xia, Y.; Bex, V.; Midgley, P.M. IPCC, 2013:
Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ (accessed on 15 June
2021).
4. Global Warming of 1.5 ◦ C. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ (accessed on 15 June 2021).
5. The Global Risks Report. 2020. Available online: https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-risks-report$-$2020 (accessed
on 15 June 2021).
6. Luo, L. The influence of institutional contexts on the relationship between voluntary carbon disclosure and carbon emission
performance. Account. Financ. 2019, 59, 1235–1264. [CrossRef]
7. Li, D.; Huang, M.; Ren, S.; Chen, X.; Ning, L. Environmental legitimacy, green innovation, and corporate carbon disclosure:
Evidence from CDP China 100. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 150, 1089–1104. [CrossRef]
8. Meng, X.H.; Zeng, S.X.; Shi, J.J.; Qi, G.Y.; Zhang, Z.B. The relationship between corporate environmental performance and
environmental disclosure: An empirical study in China. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 145, 357–367. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Zhu, N.; Qian, L.; Jiang, D.; Mbroh, N. A simulation study of China’s imposing carbon tax against American carbon tariffs. J.
Clean. Prod. 2020, 243, 118467. [CrossRef]
10. Liu, L. A Study on Corporate Carbon Emission Information Disclosure Model. Commun. Financ. Account. 2015, 16, 23–26.
11. Hahn, R.; Reimsbach, D.; Schiemann, F. Organizations, climate change, and transparency: Reviewing the literature on carbon
disclosure. Organ. Environ. 2015, 28, 80–102. [CrossRef]
12. Uyar, A.; Karaman, A.S.; Kilic, M. Is corporate social responsibility reporting a tool of signaling or greenwashing? Evidence from
the worldwide logistics sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 253, 119997. [CrossRef]
13. Mobley, S.C. The Challenges of Socio-Economic Accounting. Account. Rev. 1970, 45, 762–768.
14. Gray, R.; Owen, D.; Maunders, K. Corporate Social Reporting: Emerging Trends in Accountability and the Social Contract.
Account. Audit. Account. J. 1988, 1, 6–20. [CrossRef]
Energies 2021, 14, 4126 18 of 19

15. Friedman, M. The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profit. The New York Times Magazine, 13 September 1970;
122–126.
16. Deegan, C.; Gordon, B. A Study of the Environmental Disclosure Practices of Australian Corporations. Account. Bus. Res. 1996,
26, 187–199. [CrossRef]
17. Karim, K.E.; Lacina, M.J.; Rutledge, R.W. The Association between Firm Characteristics and the Level of Environmental Disclosure
in Financial Statement Footnotes. Adv. Environ. Account. Manag. 2006, 3, 77–109.
18. Dhaliwal, D.; Radhakrishnan, S.; Tsang, A.; Yong, G.Y. Nonfinancial Disclosure and Analyst Forecast Accuracy: International
Evidence on Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure. Account. Rev. 2012, 87, 723–759. [CrossRef]
19. Lys, T.; Naughton, J.P.; Wang, C. Signaling Through Corporate Accountability Reporting. SSRN Electron. J. 2015, 60, 56–72.
[CrossRef]
20. Hoi, C.K.; Zhang, H. Is Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Associated with Tax Avoidance? Evidence from Irresponsible CSR
activities. Account. Rev. 2013, 88, 2025–2059. [CrossRef]
21. Hassel, L.; Nilsson, H.; Nyquist, S. The Value Relevance of Environmental Performance. Eur. Account. Rev. 2005, 14, 41–61.
[CrossRef]
22. Chapple, L.; Clarkson, P.M.; Gold, D.L. The Cost of Carbon: Capital Market Effects of the Proposed Emission Trading Scheme
(ETS). Abacus 2013, 49, 1–33. [CrossRef]
23. Griffin, P.A.; Lont, D.H.; Sun, E.Y. The Relevance to Investors of Greenhouse Gas Emission Disclosures. Contemp. Account. Res.
2017, 34, 1265–1297. [CrossRef]
24. Saka, C.; Oshika, T. Disclosure effects, carbon emissions and corporate value. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2014, 5, 22–45.
[CrossRef]
25. Velte, P.; Stawinoga, M.; Lueg, R. Carbon performance and disclosure: A systematic review of governance-related determinants
and financial consequences. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 254, 120063. [CrossRef]
26. Lemma, T.T.; Feedman, M.; Mlilo, M.; Park, J.D. Corporate carbon risk, voluntary disclosure, and cost of capital: South African
evidence. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2019, 28, 111–126. [CrossRef]
27. Lueg, K.; Krastev, B.; Lueg, R. Bidirectional effects between organizational sustainability disclosure and risk. J. Clean. Prod. 2019,
229, 268–277. [CrossRef]
28. Wegener, M. The Carbon Disclosure Project, an Evolution in International Environmental Corporate Governance: Motivations
and Determinants of Market Response to Voluntary Disclosures. Master’s Thesis, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada,
2010.
29. Ziegler, A.; Busch, T.; Hoffmann, V.H. Disclosed corporate responses to climate change and stock performance: An international
empirical analysis. Energy Econ. 2011, 33, 1283–1294. [CrossRef]
30. Schiager, H.; Haukvik, G.D. The Effect of Voluntary Environmental Disclosure on Firm Value: A Study of Nordic Listed Firms.
Master’s Thesis, Norges Handelshøyskole School, Bergen, Norway, 2012.
31. Ganda, F. The influence of carbon emissions disclosure on company financial value in an emerging economy. Environ. Dev.
Sustain. 2018, 20, 1723–1738. [CrossRef]
32. Iskandar, D.; Fran, E. The Effect of Carbon Emissions Disclosure and Corporate Social Responsibility on the Firm Value with
Environmental Performance as Variable Control. Res. J. Financ. Account. 2016, 7, 9.
33. Siddique, A.; Akhtaruzzaman, M.; Rashid, A.; Hammami, H. Carbon disclosure, carbon performance and financial performance:
International evidence. Int. Rev. Financ. Anal. 2021, 75, 101734. [CrossRef]
34. Borghei, Z.; Leung, P.; Guthrie, J. Voluntary greenhouse gas emission disclosure impacts on accounting-based performance:
Australian evidence. Australas. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 25, 321–338. [CrossRef]
35. Brouwers, R.; Schoubben, F.; Cynthia Van Hulle, C.V. The influence of carbon cost pass through on the link between carbon
emission and corporate financial performance in the context of the European Union Emission Trading Scheme. Bus. Strategy
Environ. 2018, 27, 1422–1436. [CrossRef]
36. Freedman, M.; Jaggi, B. An analysis of the association between pollution disclosure and economic performance. Account. Audit.
Account. J. 1988, 1, 43–58. [CrossRef]
37. Murray, A.; Sinclair, D.; Power, D.; Gray, R. Do Financial Markets Care About Social and Environmental Disclosure? Account.
Audit. Account. J. 2006, 19, 228–255. [CrossRef]
38. Anderson, J.; Frankle, A. Voluntary Social Reporting an Iso-Beta Portfolio Analysis. Account. Rev. 1980, 19, 467–479.
39. Stanwick, S.D.; Stanwick, P.A. The relationship between environmental disclosures and financial performance: An empirical
study of US firms. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2000, 7, 155–164. [CrossRef]
40. Nor, N.M.; Bahari, N.A.; Adnan, N.A.; Kamal, S.M.; Ali, I.M. The Effects of Environmental Disclosure on Financial Performance
in Malaysia. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2016, 35, 117–126. [CrossRef]
41. Luo, L.; Lan, Y.C.; Tang, Q. Corporate incentives to disclose carbon information: Evidence from the CDP Global 500 report. J. Int.
Financ. Manag. Account. 2012, 23, 93–120. [CrossRef]
42. Luo, L.; Tang, Q.; Lan, Y.C. Comparison of propensity for carbon disclosure between developing and developed countries: A
resource constraint perspective. Account. Res. J. 2013, 26, 6–34. [CrossRef]
43. Matsumura, E.M.; Prakash, R.; Vera-Muñoz, S.C. Firm-value effects of carbon emissions and carbon disclosures. Account. Rev.
2013, 89, 695–724. [CrossRef]
Energies 2021, 14, 4126 19 of 19

44. Zhao, X.M.; Li, Y.Y. The Company Performance and the Information Disclosure Quality of Carbon Emission- From the Evidence
of China’s Listed Enterprises. J. Xi’an Shiyou Univ. 2013, 22, 22–27.
45. Zhao, X.; Yan, G. Business Performance and Carbon Disclosure Level in Heavy Polluting Industries: An Empirical Study Based
on CDP China Report 2008–2011. Commun. Financ. Account. 2014, 18, 68–70.
46. Li, X.; Shi, Y. The Impact of the Quality of Carbon Information Disclosure on Corporate Financial Performance in the Concept of
Green Development. Econ. Manag. 2016, 7, 119–132.
47. Zhu, N.; Bu, Y.; Jin, M.; Mbroh, N. Green financial behavior and green development strategy of Chinese power companies in the
context of carbon tax. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 245, 118908. [CrossRef]
48. Piesiewicz, M.; Ciechan-Kujawa, M.; Kufel, P. Differences in Disclosure of Integrated Reports at Energy and Non-Energy
Companies. Energies 2021, 14, 1253. [CrossRef]
49. Frost, G.R.; Wilmshurst, T.D. Corporate environmental reporting: A test of legitimacy theory. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2000, 13,
10–26.
50. Clarkson, P.M.; Li, Y.; Richardson, G.D.; Vasvari, F.P. Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environ-
mental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Account. Organ. Soc. 2008, 33, 303–327. [CrossRef]
51. Al-Tuwaijri, S.A.; Christensen, T.E.; Hughes, K.I. The relations among environmental disclosure, environmental performance,
and economic performance: A simultaneous equations approach. Soc. Sci. Electron. Publ. 2004, 29, 447–471. [CrossRef]
52. Jenkins, H.; Yakovleva, N. Corporate Social Responsibility in the Mining Industry: Exploring Trends in Social and Environmental
Disclosure. J. Clean. Prod. 2004, 14, 274–284. [CrossRef]
53. Freedman, M.; Jaggi, B. Pollution disclosures, pollution performance and economic performance. Omega 1982, 10, 167–176.
[CrossRef]
54. Richardson, A.J.; Welker, M. Social disclosure, financial disclosure and the cost of equity capital. Account. Organ. Soc. 2001, 26,
597–616. [CrossRef]
55. Johnson, H.H. Does it pay to be good? Social responsibility and financial performance. Bus. Horiz. 2003, 46, 34–40. [CrossRef]
56. Stanny, E.; Ely, K. Corporate Environmental Disclosures about the Effects of Climate Change. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ.
Manag. 2008, 15, 338–348. [CrossRef]
57. Hsu, A.W.; Wang, T. Does the market value corporate response to climate change? Omega 2013, 41, 195–206. [CrossRef]
58. Plumlee, M.; Marshall, S.; Brown, D. Voluntary Environmental Disclosure Quality and Firm Value. Roles of Venue and Industry
Type. Soc. Sci. Electron. Publ. 2009, 34, 336–361.
59. Dhaliwal, D.S.; Li, O.Z.; Tsang, A.; Yang, Y.G. Voluntary nonfinancial disclosure and the cost of equity capital: The initiation of
corporate social responsibility reporting. Account. Rev. 2011, 86, 59–100. [CrossRef]
60. Clarkson, P.M.; Fang, X.; Li, Y.; Richardson, G. The relevance of environmental disclosures: Are such disclosures incrementally
informative? J. Account. Public Policy 2013, 32, 410–431. [CrossRef]
61. De Villiers, C.; Marques, A. Corporate social responsibility, country-level predispositions, and the consequences of choosing a
level of disclosure. Account. Bus. Res. 2016, 46, 167–195. [CrossRef]
62. He, Y.; Tian, Q.; Wang, K. Carbon Disclosure, Carbon Performance, and Cost of Capital. Account. Res. 2014, 1, 79–86, 95. [CrossRef]