6. Discussion and conclusion
While the importance of using EMA tools has been increasingly acknowledged in extant literature (e.g. Ascui, 2014; Bennett et al., 2003; Burritt and Saka, 2006; Ferreira et al., 2010), little attention has been paid on assessing and understanding the application of different EMA tools and their effectiveness on carbon management and disclosure. Using data gathered with the Corporate Sustainability Barometer survey of large companies in Germany, Australia, Japan and the USA, and data on the carbon performance and disclosure collected from the CDP database, this study finds a relatively low level of application of EMA tools. While this may reflect uncertainty among managers concerning the effectiveness of EMA, our study shows that the use of EMA tools is positively and significantly associated with carbon management and disclosure quality.
With regard to the challenge outlined in the introduction, i.e. staying within the carrying capacity of the earth, the findings show that EMA tools are effective in managing carbon emissions. They are useful for managers to address the challenge of climate change and to become more aware of carbon emissions. These results complement several prior studies on the effects of other groups of management tools (e.g. sustainability management tools, product design tools; see Horisch et al., 2015a € ), or of some individual tools (e.g. eco-control or company internal emission trading schemes (Henri and Journeault, 2010; Horisch, 2013 € ), on corporate carbon performance. In this regard, a further challenge for practitioners is to decide which tools to use and which EMA tools are most effective.