U can open my blackboard and see the question because it is the related to task 1and 2 . Now task l3 I have to do according to comments mentioned by course cordinator. It’s a research project in which I have taken legitimacy theory and with legitimacy theory I have to compare my question is climate change integrated into business strategy? And also compare the literature review with research questions and hypothesis. The file attached is wrong .
MGT723 Research Project Semester 1 2018 Assessment Task 3: Report Student Name: Neha Title: legitimacy theory Assigned research topic: Is climate change integrated into business strategy Submission Date: Saturday, 21 july,2018 Question: Is there is any relationship between Carbon disclosure score and inclusion of climate change strategy in business? Acknowledgement: I certify that I have carefully reviewed the university’s academic misconduct policy. I understand that the source of ideas must be referenced and that quotation marks and a reference are required when directly quoting anyone else’s words. Introduction: (Not assessed) Climate change is often considered to be today's most important environmental challenge, and the scientific evidence increasingly points toward man-made emissions of carbon dioxide as a cause of the problem. The first approach concerns performance in terms of output, direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions, while the second one is based on environmental intention of mitigating climate change, including climate change policy and emission reduction initiatives. The Climate Performance Leadership Index is employed as a measure for climate change disclosure level, incorporating initiatives contributing to climate change mitigation, adaptation and transparency. Literature Review: (Has been condensed from task 2 for task 3) Literature on legitimacy theory recommends that communication is one procedure of legitimation (Gray, 1995a and Gray, 1995b). The yearly report has been viewed as the significant communication medium and data source for scientists examining inspirations for natural disclosures. According to our findings, environmental performance for both adopted approaches entails a positive effect on climate change disclosure, a result that is consistent with voluntary disclosure theory. (Buhr, 1998 , p. 164) states that “the annual report is the most commonly accepted and recognized corporate communication vehicle”. O’Donovan, suggests that corporate management believe that the annual report is an effective way of informing and educating the public of the corporation’s view of certain environmental issues (1999).Guthrie point out that “the credibility of the annual report to relevant public provides organizational managers with a unique opportunity to design a particular organizational image for their relevant public” (Guthrie, 1989, p. 344).Hooghiemstra argues that companies use corporate social reporting as a corporate communication instrument (Hooghiemstra, 2000). To achieve the carbon emission targets and avoid the fines, companies could invest in their carbon reduction management system by using low emission energy, equipment, and/or by developing low carbon technology. The main aim of this instrument is to influence people’s beliefs of the company. Deegan, argue that companies consider that social disclosure in annual report is a useful device to reduce the effects upon a corporation of events that are perceived to be unfavourable to a corporation’s image (Deegan, 2000). O'Donovan points out that most of the research, which conducted to confirm legitimacy motives for social disclosures has used ex-post content analysis of annual reports and / or other published data, is limited in usefulness as they only allow for explanations about data that were disclosed (O'Donovan, 2002). Some studies have focused upon the data gathered by (questionnaires-interviews publicly available data or documents). A few researchers for example, (Buhr, 1998 and O’Donovan, 1999) have used methods to gather qualitative data by the direct questioning of managers for the purposes of testing legitimacy theory. (O'Donovan, 2002) argues that gathering data, directly from management, about their beliefs and from ex-ante perspectives is more useful in evaluating reasons for certain environmental disclosure and, more importantly, why decisions not to include environmental information were made. The author (Gray, 1995b) argue that differences in research approach and the difficulties in showing these differences in method consider one of the problems, which arises in attempts to research the phenomenon of social and environmental reporting. The analysis of (Guthrie, 1989) has failed to support legitimacy theory as an explanation for corporate social reporting. Many studies (Brown, 1998; Buhr, 1998; O'Donovan, 2002 ; O’Donovan, 1999) report that environmental disclosure strategies of management appeared to be tied to the extent of media attention devoted to environmental issues. Legitimacy theory hypothesis that an organization's survival relies upon getting and looking after social endorsement. An organization ought to acknowledge responsibility for the social and environment implications of its operations. On the off chance that it neglects to agree to requests of society, an organization will confront dangers to its authenticity furthermore, later to its survival. Organizations are confronting expanding weights to openly be their environment performance. Conceptual Model: (Not Assessed) Conceptual frameworkINDEPENDENT VARIABLE: Inclusions of climate change issues in business strategies DEPENDENT VARIABLE: DISCLOSURE SCORE CONTROL VARIABLE: Companies including climate change in business strategy 1ST 30: YES 1st 30: NO 1ST 30: NO Figure 1 Conceptual model showing IV, DV and CV Hypotheses: H0: There is no relationship between carbon disclosure score and integrated climate change in business strategy. H1: There is meaningful relationship between carbon disclosure score and integrated climate change in business strategy. Proxy measures: Table 1: Illustrating Proxy measures Theoretical Construct Proxy measure Dependent (DV), Independent (IV), or Control Variable (CV) Source Voluntary Disclosure Percentage Disclosure score CDP data Dependent Variable CDP Inclusion of climate change into business strategy Companies reporting to Carbon disclosure project Independent Variable CDP Scale of companies First 60 companies divided into: Ist 30: yes Ist 30: no Control variable CDP Data Analysis – Descriptive (Not assessed) To analyse the data and comparison descriptive data analysis is being applied in research paper. Descriptive data analysis is reformed to be one of the best form to analyse and tabulate the collective samples from the set of data provided in CDP. To measure the central tendency results is to analyse the differences from data collection Mean, Median, Mode are used. Skewness and range is used to box plot the results of data collection. Based on two underlying parameters for the assigned question, the research proceeds in analysing the data by SPSS Representation using descriptive analysis. The two underlying parameters for analysing the descriptive data are as follows- 1. Is climate change integrated in the business strategy and how does it affect the carbon disclosure score? 2. Is Climate change not integrated into the business strategy and how does it affect the carbon disclosure score? Table 2. Companies where climate change is included in the business strategy COMPANIES RESPONDING YES MEAN 90.9 MEDIAN 97 MODE 100 MAXIMUM 100 MINIMUM 0 RANGE 100 STANDARD DEVIATION 19.11011648 SKEWNESS -4.07676280 KURTOSIS 18.61209467 SUM 2727 COUNT 30 The above table 1 indicates the descriptive of emission level based on where climate change is integrated into the business strategy with positive response. Mean of the companies responding yes is 90.9 is higher which says that these companies emit high level of emission. The standard deviation is low in these companies which means the data is normally distributed. The range in yes in this data is 100 which means there is great dispersion in data. The skewness is -4.07(as it is <0) which="" indicate="" the="" distribution="" is="" highly="" negatively="" skewed="" and="" far="" from="" symmetrical.="" however,="" positive="" kurtosis="" (distribution="">3) suggest that distribution is leptokurtic and has longer and flatter tails and its central peak is higher and sharper. Table 2. Companies where climate change is not included into the business strategy COMPANIES RESPONDING NO MEAN 47.3 MEDIAN 49.5 MODE 0 MAXIMUM 99 MINIMUM 0 RANGE 99 STANDARD DEVIATION 37.10484 SKEWNESS -0.10782 KURTOSIS -1.54075 SUM 1419 COUNT 30 The above table 2 indicates the descriptive of emission level based on where climate change is not integrated into the business strategy with negative response. Mean of the companies responding no is 47.3 which is lower than the yes responding companies which means data is not normally distributed. The range in no responding data is 99 which not a significant difference according to the yes responding companies. The skewness is -0.10 (as it is <0) which="" says="" that="" the="" distribution="" is="" slightly="" negatively="" skewed.="" whereas,="" in="" this="" companies="" where="" climate="" change="" is="" not="" integrated="" in="" the="" business="" strategy="" shows="" negative="" trend="" and="" if the kurtosis is="" less="" than="" zero,="" then="" the="" distribution="" is="" light="" tails="" and="" is="" called="" a="" platykurtic="" distribution.="" data="" analysis="" –="" inferential="" (assessed)="" table="" 4="" paired="" samples="" statistics="" table="" 5="" paired="" sample="" correlations="" table="" 5="" paired="" sample="" test="" hypothesis="" testing="" (assessed):="" p="" value="" rejection="" rule="" is="" applied="" to="" test="" hypothesis="" (c,="" 2018).="" this="" rule="" state="" as:="" p="" value="" or="" sig="" value="">< .05="" (alpha)="" (reject="" the="" null="" hypotheses)="" or="" p="" value=""> 0.05 (accept the null hypotheses) Application of rule: .000< .05 so, reject the null hypothesis (c, 2018). h0: there is no relationship between carbon disclosure score and integrated climate change in business strategy. (rejected because p value is smaller than alpha) h1: there is meaningful relationship between carbon disclosure score and integrated climate change in business strategy. (accepted because p value is smaller than alpha) in the table paired samples test significant is .000 which is less than alpha .05 which means null hypothesis is rejected and h1 is accepted. there is significance relationship between carbon disclosure score and inclusion climate change issues in business strategy discussion (assessed) the allocated theory for this research was legitimacy theory. legitimacy theory (deegan 2009; deegan & gordon 1996; deegan & rankin 1996; patten 1991, 1992; patten 2002) posits that an organisation is operating within norms or standards which have been identified in the “social contract” between the organisation and the community members. therefore, .05="" so,="" reject="" the="" null="" hypothesis="" (c,="" 2018).="" h0:="" there="" is="" no="" relationship="" between="" carbon="" disclosure="" score="" and="" integrated="" climate="" change="" in="" business="" strategy.="" (rejected="" because="" p="" value="" is="" smaller="" than="" alpha)="" h1:="" there="" is="" meaningful="" relationship="" between="" carbon="" disclosure="" score="" and="" integrated="" climate="" change="" in="" business="" strategy.="" (accepted="" because="" p="" value="" is="" smaller="" than="" alpha)="" in="" the="" table="" paired="" samples="" test="" significant="" is="" .000="" which="" is="" less="" than="" alpha="" .05="" which="" means="" null="" hypothesis="" is="" rejected="" and="" h1="" is="" accepted.="" there="" is="" significance="" relationship="" between="" carbon="" disclosure="" score="" and="" inclusion="" climate="" change="" issues="" in="" business="" strategy="" discussion="" (assessed)="" the="" allocated="" theory="" for="" this="" research="" was="" legitimacy="" theory.="" legitimacy="" theory="" (deegan="" 2009;="" deegan="" &="" gordon="" 1996;="" deegan="" &="" rankin="" 1996;="" patten="" 1991,="" 1992;="" patten="" 2002)="" posits="" that="" an="" organisation="" is="" operating="" within="" norms="" or="" standards="" which="" have="" been="" identified="" in="" the="" “social="" contract”="" between="" the="" organisation="" and="" the="" community="" members.="">