5. Discussion and conclusion This paper explores the issue of GHG emissions reporting by MNCs. This is an important topic due to the impact that these organizations can have on the global climate change problem. The theoretical framework to explain the quality of GHG emissions reporting is developed by considering how institutional pressures act on different typologies of MNC which in turn impacts internal reporting practices. Linking standardization of practices with the quality of GHG emissions reported, it is found that different typologies of MNC are likely to have different approaches to standardization which ultimately affects reported data quality. The empirical case study gives additional insights and support for the propositions developed.
The case study finds some support for the notion that MNC practices for reporting on climate change conform to the MNC organization strategy. It is observed that global MNCs, ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell, tend to adopt standardized procedures throughout the organization referring to specific methodologies used to calculate GHG data and providing assurance (of varying levels) of GHG data collection processes or of the GHG data reported. In line with the expectation that Global MNCs are less likely influenced by country level institutional pressures, a consistent overall quality of reporting on climate change was observed for ExxonMobil compared to BP. BP on the other hand adopts a more decentralized approach to carbon management, leaving carbon reduction decisions to the discretion of local management. This means that it is potentially also more difficult for the company to standardize reporting practices successfully. This is somewhat evident from the BP sustainability reports in that they do not include all operations within the GHG inventory boundary, do not report on GHG calculation procedures or methodologies and it is also not clear whether (or what percentage of) GHG data specifically is included within the assurance processes. Likewise the assurance provided is at a limited level, while both ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell (in 2015) attempt to provide a reasonable level of assurance. This would indicate that the quality of data reported is overall poorer than that reported by ExxonMobil or Royal Dutch Shell. However, it also must be noted that the overall quality of reporting by these MNCs is below that which is expected when it is compared to the relevant guidelines. Furthermore, differences in the approaches to assurance makes comparison of the quality of reported data difficult.
