Carbon emission is one of the major problems in the environment today globally. Emission of carbon has been affecting the industries greatly. In this research, the stakeholder theory will be discussed with effect to the carbon emission. There are certain theoretical as well as practical motivations to this concept of carbon emission in accordance with the stakeholder theory. The research is mainly aimed at evaluating the changes in the emission of carbon by the companies.
In view of dependence on carbon-based utilities, our atmosphere is changing quickly and it’s a remediable issue of the present corporate world. Organizations convey and discharge a huge measure of carbon in the earth in perspective of their radiation of taking care of plant abuse in pointless aggregate and a section of the ruinous fabricated blends utilized as a bit of storing up of the thing. Nowadays the organizations also end up being extremely aware of the need to make a move on environmental change.
The Stakeholder got a huge influence on the organization. According to Donaldsom and Preston (1991), “Stakeholder theory has been used to describe (a) the nature of the firm (Brenner and Cochran, 1991), (b) the way managers think about managing (Brenner and Molander, 1977), (c) how board members think about the interests of corporate con stridencies (Wang and Dewhirst, 1992), and (d) how some corporations are actually managed (Clarkson, 1995; Halal, 1990; Kreiner and Bhambri, 1991)”. There is not much disagreement on what kind of entity can be a stakeholder. Persons, groups, neighborhoods, organizations, institutions, societies, and even the natural environment are generally thought to qualify as actual or potential stakeholders (Mitchell and Agle, 1997). One investor’s advantage is to expand the benefits and lessen the useless exercises from the business in here and now, yet the primary focus of association ought to be to deal with the prerequisites and meet the desires for Stakeholder (George, 2003). The primary individuals who ring a bell while considering who holds the stakes at an association are the Shareholder and the government. Other than the undeniable, Stakeholder consolidates each one of those exercises and responsibilities affects association execution, like laborers, customers, and business accomplices (Bridoux and Stoelhorst, 2014).
Analyses have also shown that the associations in the USA transmit a massive proportion of carbon into the air. 23 – 24 % of the carbon Dioxide transmitted by the corporate firms wherever all through the world start with the USA associations. The USA uses oil-based goods to make essentialness and subsequently, the surge of carbon in the atmosphere by the USA firms are high (Jones and Wicks, 1999). This examination paper is thusly away to work up the capabilities in the rate changes in the arrival of carbon by the relationship in the context of USA as for the presentation of jolts that a few affiliations accommodate the association and some others don’t. The adjustments in the arrival of carbon dioxide have been assessed in a rating scale from the year 2012 to 2013. The choice of the relationship in the spread of carbon dioxide is all things considered in the context of the impact the accessories play on the affiliations. Considering the choice of the accessories, the affiliations will pick whether to give influencing forces to the association or not.
|
Theoretical Construct |
The proxy measure (From CDP survey provided) |
Dependent (DV) and Independent (IV). Control Variable (CV), Mediating Variable (MeV) or Moderating Variable (MoV). In a sentence explaining why it is a DV, IV, CV, MeV or MoV |
Measurement Scale: Nominal, Ordinal, or Scale (Ratio) |
|
Carbon Emission |
Percentage changes of CO2 per unit currency total revenue. |
DV (% change in CO2e from previous year dependent on Stakeholder decision either providing an incentive to the management or not. |
Ratio or scale |
|
Company’s location. |
Country (USA) |
CV (There are thousands of companies in the CDP survey spreadsheet, located in different part of the world and for fair judgment this research only compares companies from the USA. |
Nominal |
|
Stakeholder response in providing incentive. |
The company provide incentives or not to the management of climate change issues. |
IV (providing incentive doesn’t depend on any other variable companies can take their own decision. |
Nominal |
H0: μ =0 [There is no significant relationship between percentage changes in CO2e in the year 2012-2013 and company provide incentives to the management.]
H1: μ ≠0 [There is a significant relationship between percentage changes in CO2e in the year 2012-2013 and company provide incentives to the management.]
The nature of data that was used is secondary in nature. Thus, data were obtained from existing sources. The data was provided for from the institutional repository. However, using secondary data comes with some challenges. Since the data already exists, there is a chance of having the data biased from the original collectors. Consequently, one cannot alter the data to suit the study being carried out and thus will have to carry out the study with the data as is.
The trend in 2012 and 2013 can be seen to be almost similar through one of the companies had an impressive emission of -489.04..
Similarly, the trend for 2012 and 2013 are almost similar though there are marginal differences.
The company provides incentives for the management
Table 1: Descriptive statistics when company provides incentives
|
2012 |
2013 |
|
|
Mean |
-10.03 |
-25.41 |
|
Median |
-8.50 |
-8.50 |
|
Mode |
-14 |
-1 |
|
Range |
67.80 |
488.33 |
|
Variance |
164.47 |
7731.80 |
|
Standard deviation |
12.82 |
87.93 |
|
Interquartile range |
9.75 |
10.48 |
|
quartile deviation |
4.88 |
5.24 |
|
Skewness |
-2.01 |
-5.41 |
|
Kurtosis |
6.72 |
29.45 |
From table 1 above, it is evident that the mean of carbon emission when the company provides incentives for the management is -10.03 ± 12.82 in 2012 and -25.41 ± 87.93 in 2013. Thus, the mean of the level of carbon emission is higher in 2012 compared to 2013 when the company provides incentives to the management. However, the median of the level of carbon emission for both years is the same (both at -8.50). Since the median is greater than the mean, we conclude that the distribution is negatively skewed (Skewness of the level of carbon emission is -2.01 and -5.41 in 2012 and 2013 respectively). Conversely, the mode the two distribution varies with -14 in 2012 and -1 in 2013. Thus, -14 level of carbon emission occurs more in 2012 while -1 occurs more in 2013. The range of the level of carbon emission in 2012 is 67.80 while in 2013 is 488.33. From this, it can be seen that in 2013, the level of dispersion of 488.33 is greater than the 2012 level of dispersion of 67.80. Factoring in the interquartile range, it can be seen that the level of dispersion in 2013 (10.48) is greater than the level of dispersion in 2012 (9.75). Since the interquartile range is not affected by outliers, it is evident that the interquartile range is a better measure of spread though the results remain the same. The quartile deviation in 2012 and 2013 are lower compared to the interquartile range. This is expected since the quartile deviation is robust than the interquartile range since it takes into account every variable n the dataset. Consequently, the quartile deviation is higher in 2013 (5.24) compared to 2012 (4.88). Thus, there is more spread in 2013 compared to 2012.
Consequently, the variance of the level of carbon emission in 2013 (7731.80) is greater than 2012(164.47). Hence, the level of carbon emission is more volatile in 2013 compared to the level of carbon emission in 2012.
The kurtosis on the level of carbon emission distribution is 6.72 in 2012 and 29.45 in 2013. Since the kurtosis is greater than 3, it is evident that the two datasets have heavier tails than a normal distribution.
The company does not provide incentives for the management
Table 2: Descriptive statistics when a company does not provide incentives
|
2012 |
2013 |
|
|
Mean |
-6.88 |
-14.23 |
|
Median |
-8.11 |
-10.46 |
|
Mode |
-13 |
-20 |
|
Range |
70.00 |
77.50 |
|
Variance |
147.55 |
234.06 |
|
Standard deviation |
12.15 |
15.30 |
|
Interquartile range |
11.73 |
12.16 |
|
quartile deviation |
5.87 |
6.08 |
|
Skewness |
-0.78 |
-2.78 |
|
Kurtosis |
4.09 |
9.99 |
From table 2, it is evident that the mean of carbon emission when the company does not provides incentives for the management is -6.88 ± 12.15 in 2012 and -14.23 ± 15.30 in 2013. Hence, the mean of the level of carbon emission is higher in 2012 compared to 2013. In this scenario, the company does not provide incentives to the government.
On the other hand, the median of the level of carbon emission for both years is -8.11 and -10.46 in 2012 and 2013 respectively. The median is greater than the mean in 2013 while it is less in 2012. From this, it can be deduced that the distribution in 2013 is negatively skewed while the distribution in 2012 is positively skewed. However, the negativity if the skewness is proved in 2013 (-2.78) unlike in 2012 where the skewness was found to be negative (-0.78).
The mode of the two distribution varies from -13 in 2012 and -20 in 2013. Thus, -13 level of carbon emission occurs more in 2012 unlike in 2013 where -20 occurs more. The range of the level of carbon emission in 2012 is 70 while in 2013 is77.5. From this, it can be seen that in 2013, the level of dispersion of 77.5 is greater than the 2012 level of dispersion of 70. Factoring in the interquartile range, it can be seen that the level of dispersion in 2013 (12.16) is greater than the level of dispersion in 2012 (11.73). As expected, the quartile deviation in 2012 and 2013 are lower compared to the interquartile range. Consequently, the quartile deviation is higher in 2013 (6.08) compared to 2012 (5.87). Thus, there is more spread in 2013 compared to 2012.
Consequently, the variance of the level of carbon emission in 2013 (234.06) is greater than 2012(147.55). Hence, the level of carbon emission is more volatile in 2013 compared to the level of carbon emission in 2012.
The kurtosis on the level of carbon emission distribution is 4.09 in 2012 and 9.99 in 2013. Since the kurtosis is greater than 3, it is evident that the two datasets have heavier tails than a normal distribution.
Based on the descriptive analysis, it can be seen that carbon emissions have increased from 2013 compared to 2012 regardless of whether there are incentives for the management or not. However, when there are incentives for the management, carbon emissions are more. The stakeholders’ theory claim that an organization has to make a profit to benefit all the stakeholders. Thus, when a company is forced to reach its targets, corporate responsibilities are bound to be overlooked. Thus, more carbon emission will be seen by the company in the USA.
To prove the developed hypothesis and the stakeholder’s theory comprehensively, inferential statistics will have to be conducted. The chosen inferential statistics that will be used will be the independent sample t-test. The independent sample t-test is the most appropriate since it is used to compare whether two independent groups (2012 and 2013) significantly difference (Norusis, 2006).
The advantage of using an independent sample t-test is that the statistical technique is robust, easy to calculate and there is the ease of gathering data. Through the statistical technique identified, we can be able to prove or disapprove the null hypothesis developed.
Consequently, a regression analysis will have to be carried out to determine how data emissions are influenced by the presence of incentives to the management. The regression analysis will thus be able to build on the conceptual model.
References
Clarkson, M.E., 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of management review, 20(1), pp.92-117.
Brenner, S.N. and Cochran, P., 1991, July. The stakeholder theory of the firm: Implications for business and society theory and research. In Proceedings of the international association for business and society (Vol. 2, pp. 897-933).
Brenner, S.N. and Molander, E.A., 1977. Is ethics of business changing. Harvard Business Review, 55(1), pp.57-71.
Bridoux, F. and Stoelhorst, J.W., 2014. Microfoundations for stakeholder theory: Managing stakeholders with heterogeneous motives. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), pp.107-125.
Donaldson, T., and Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of management Review, 20(1), 65-91.
George, B., 2003. Managing stakeholders vs. responding to shareholders. Strategy and Leadership, 31(6), pp.36-40.
Halal, W.E., 1990. The new management: Business and social institutions in the information age. Business in the Contemporary World, 2(2), pp.41-54.
Jones, T.M. and Wicks, A.C., 1999. Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of management review, 24(2), pp.206-221.
Kreiner, P., A. Bhambri. 1991. Influence and information in organization-stakeholder relationships. J. E. Post (Ed.) Research in Corporate Social performance and Policy, 12, pp.3-36.
Mitchell, R.K. and Agle, B.R., 1997, July. Stakeholder identification and salience: Dialogue and operationalization. In Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society (Vol. 8, pp. 717-727).
Norušis, M.J., 2006. SPSS 14.0 guide to data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wang, J. and Dewhirst, H.D., 1992. Boards of directors and stakeholder orientation. Journal of business ethics, 11(2), pp.115-123.
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download