Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Pathways to a Sustainable Economy pp 87–101Cite as

Carbon Disclosure Strategies in the Global Logistics Industry: Similarities and Differences in Carbon Measurement and Reporting

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

The transportation industry can be regarded as a significant contributor to greenhouse gases, which puts pressure on global logistics companies to disclose their carbon emissions in the form of carbon reports. However, the majority of these reports show differences in the measurement and reporting of carbon information. Through an institutional theory lens, this chapter discusses the emergence and institutionalisation of carbon disclosure and their influence on carbon reporting, using the cases of FedEx and UPS. In particular, the chapter examines whether the carbon reports follow a symbolic or substantial approach and which institutional logic dominates the rationale behind each company’s carbon disclosure. We uncover significant variances in the measurement and reporting of carbon performance information between those companies that provide insights into the different dominant logics and their influence on carbon reporting. Our results show that both companies adopt different dominant logics due to heterogeneous carbon reporting practices. In a quest for market-controlled sustainability initiatives, this research is important (a) for understanding the ways in which major carbon contributors operate between market and sustainability logics, and (b) for policymakers to provide an understanding of how to encourage investments in carbon performance without reducing the ability to compete in the marketplace, thus initiating a shift to more environmentally friendly activities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abbasi, M., & Nilsson, F. (2016). Developing environmentally sustainable logistics: Exploring themes and challenges from a logistics service providers’ perspective. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 46, 273–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckert, J. (1999). Agency, entrepreneurs, and institutional change. The role of strategic choice and institutionalized practices in organizations. Organization Studies, 20(5), 777–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cashore, B., Auld, G., & Newsom, D. (2004). Governing through markets: Regulating forestry through non-state environmental governance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castelo Branco, M., Eugénio, T., & Ribeiro, J. (2008). Environmental disclosure in response to public perception of environmental threats: The case of co-incineration in Portugal. Journal of Communication Management, 12(2), 136–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CDP. (2014). Climate action and profitability: CDP S&P 500 climate change report 2014. New York, NY: CDP North America.

    Google Scholar 

  • CDP. (2015a). Carbon disclosure project 2015. Retrieved from http://www.cdproject.net/index.asp

  • CDP. (2015b). Investor CDP 2015 information request. In Carbon disclosure project. London: FedEx Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.cdp.net/en.

    Google Scholar 

  • CDP. (2015c). Investor CDP 2015 information request. In Carbon disclosure project. London: UPS. Retrieved from https://www.cdp.net/en.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, S. E., & Ostrom, E. (1995). A grammar of institutions. American Political Science Review, 89(03), 582–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Aunno, T., Sutton, R. I., & Price, R. H. (1991). Isomorphism and external support in conflicting institutional environments: A study of drug abuse treatment units. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 636–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment (Vol. 1, pp. 3–22). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du Gay, P. (2000). Markets and meanings: Re-imagining organizational life. In M. Schultz, M. Hatch, & M. Larsen (Eds.), The expressive organization: Linking identity, reputation, and the corporate brand (pp. 66–76). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2007). Carbon footprint: What it is and how to measure it. Geneva: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • FedEx. (2014). FedEx annual report. Memphis, TN: FedEx Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Figge, F. (2005). Value-based environmental management. From environmental shareholder value to environmental option value. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 12(1), 19–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., Díaz, A. M., Li, S. X., & Lorente, J. C. (2010). The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses. Organization Science, 21(2), 521–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, R., Reimsbach, D., & Schiemann, F. (2015). Organizations, climate change, and transparency: Reviewing the literature on carbon disclosure. Organization & Environment, 28(1), 80–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, C., Palmer, I., & Phillips, N. (2000). Discourse as a strategic resource. Human Relations, 53(9), 1227–1248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herold, D. M., & Lee, K.-H. (2017). Carbon management in the logistics and transportation sector: An overview and new research directions. Carbon Management, 8(1), 79–97.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hertz, S., & Alfredsson, M. (2003). Strategic development of third party logistics providers. Industrial Marketing Management, 32(2), 139–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, A. J. (2004). Climate change strategy: The business logic behind voluntary greenhouse gas reductions. Ross School of Business paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, J., & Lodhia, S. (2011). Sustainability reporting and reputation risk management: An Australian case study. International Journal of Accounting & Information Management, 19(3), 267–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hrasky, S. (2011). Carbon footprints and legitimation strategies: Symbolism or action? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 25(1), 174–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPIECA. (2011). Petroleum industry guidelines for reporting greenhouse gas emissions. London: International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J.-N., Bach, S. B., & Clelland, I. J. (2007). Symbolic or behavioral management? Corporate reputation in high-emission industries. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(2), 77–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KMPG. (2014). Corporate sustainability. A progress report. Amsterdam: KMPG. Retrieved from http://www.sustainabilityexchange.ac.uk/files/corporate-sustainability-a-progress-report_1.pdf

  • Kolk, A., Levy, D., & Pinkse, J. (2008). Corporate responses in an emerging climate regime: The institutionalization and commensuration of carbon disclosure. European Accounting Review, 17(4), 719–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K. H., & Vachon, S. (2016). Business value and sustainability: An integrated supply network perspective. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lounsbury, M., & Ventresca, M. (2003). The new structuralism in organizational theory. Organization, 10(3), 457–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2004). Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 657–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinnon, A., & Piecyk, M. (2012). Setting targets for reducing carbon emissions from logistics: Current practice and guiding principles. Carbon Management, 3(6), 629–639.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Michelon, G. (2011). Sustainability disclosure and reputation: A comparative study. Corporate Reputation Review, 14(2), 79–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, D. F., & Bendell, J. (1999). Partners in time? Business, NGOs and sustainable development. Discussion paper, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (Vol. 109, pp. 1–71). New York: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Onghena, E., Meersman, H., & Van de Voorde, E. (2014). A translog cost function of the integrated air freight business: The case of FedEx and UPS. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 62, 81–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, H., Morrill, C., & Zald, M.N. (2000). Power plays: How social movements and collective action create new organizational forms. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 237–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reay, T., & Hinings, C. B. (2005). The recomposition of an organizational field: Health care in Alberta. Organization Studies, 26(3), 351–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaltegger, S., & Burritt, R. (2015). Business cases and corporate engagement with sustainability: Differentiating ethical motivations. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–19. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2938-0.

  • Schaltegger, S., & Csutora, M. (2012). Carbon accounting for sustainability and management. Status quo and challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production, 36, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaltegger, S., & Hörisch, J. (2015). In search of the dominant rationale in sustainability management: Legitimacy-or profit-seeking? Journal of Business Ethics, 1–18. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2854-3.

  • Schmidt, M. (2009). Carbon accounting and carbon footprint—More than just diced results? International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 1(1), 19–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (1991). Unpacking institutional arguments. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 164–182). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selznick, P. (2011). Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. New Orleans, LA: Quid Pro Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sridhar, K. (2012). Corporate conceptions of triple bottom line reporting: An empirical analysis into the signs and symbols driving this fashionable framework. Social Responsibility Journal, 8(3), 312–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Styhre, A. (2011). Competing institutional logics in the biopharmaceutical industry: The move away from the small molecules therapies model in the post-genomic era. Creativity and Innovation Management, 20(4), 311–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2005). Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 35–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. H. (2004). Markets from culture: Institutional logics and organizational decisions in higher education publishing. Standford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • UPS. (2014). UPS annual report 2013. Louisville, GA: UPS.

    Google Scholar 

  • UPS. (2015). UPS annual report 2014. Louisville, GA: UPS.

    Google Scholar 

  • WRI/WBCSD. (2011). The greenhouse gas protocol: A corporate accounting and reporting standard (Revised ed.). Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooten, M., & Hoffman, A. J. (2008). Organizational fields: Past, present and future. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Shalin-Andersson, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 130–147). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Economic Forum. (2012). Global agenda councils on logistics & supply chain. New York, NY: World Economic Forum.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia

    David M. Herold & Ki-Hoon Lee

Authors
  1. David M. Herold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ki-Hoon Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David M. Herold .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Griffith Asia Institute and Department of International Business and Asian Studies, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia

    Moazzem Hossain

  2. Griffith Centre for Sustainable Enterprise, Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia

    Robert Hales

  3. Griffith Centre for Sustainable Enterprise and Department of International Business and Asian Studies, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia

    Tapan Sarker

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Herold, D.M., Lee, KH. (2018). Carbon Disclosure Strategies in the Global Logistics Industry: Similarities and Differences in Carbon Measurement and Reporting. In: Hossain, M., Hales, R., Sarker, T. (eds) Pathways to a Sustainable Economy . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67702-6_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation