Sustuinable Development

Sustainable development arise because of the assumption that the market economy is not always concerned about the environment. The difference between the market "perfect" and the environment as a fundamental reason why economic activities lead to environmental degradation. These differences led to the emergence of environmental economics, as a public policy intervention in the allocation of environmental resources through non-market activities or to correct market failures. The concept of sustainable development is a planning concept which emphasizes the principles of balance between economic, social, and cultural rights as the primary objective with the principles of environmental sustainability.

In the context of sustainable development, especially in the spatial dimension has received little attention. The importance of spatial elements derived from the mutual relations are (1) the global and local influence (2) global trends will affect local. Economic structure and environment in a specific region of an area to determine the sensitivity of the economic power and the external environment (Bergh and Nijkamp, 1999). Therefore, the study of sustainability in a multi-regional system could be useful in the spatial implications of global sustainability, both in regional and international activities.

The concept of sustainable development is essentially founded on three basic pillars, namely economic, social, and environmental. The third approach is not an approach that stands partially, but interact to influence each other. Sustainable development is the process of bringing these three development processes in a balanced way. At the local level, sustainable development requires that economic development can sustain people's lives through the use of resources locally. If the results of economic development (welfare) is to be distributed in the long run, the protection of the environment to prevent ecological damage is one way to go (ICLEI, 1996). Schematically, the relationship between the three basic pillars of sustainable development can be described as follows:

FIGURE 1.
BASIC PILLAR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

In principle, the concept of sustainable development promote economic and social development and environmental protection. These three aspects should be run in a balanced and mutually supportive. Sustainable development considering that aspects of development undertaken sustain and support developments in the future. Sustainable development describes the alignment and harmony in the use of natural resources, and the resources made ​​by taking into account ongoing conservation efforts.

Sustainable development can be called if it fulfills the criteria of economic, socially beneficial, and preserve the environment. At first, the concept of sustainable development is dominated by the economic dimension. The dimensions of the environment started to receive attention in the eighties. Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 was the starting point in the consideration of the social dimension of sustainable development. One important result of the conference was the establishment of a commission of sustainable development (CSD - Commission on Sustainable Development). The Commission has produced an agreement to implement the concept of sustainable development as set out in Agenda 21 (Sugiyono, 2004).

The concept of sustainable development, especially economic development, is based on the available capacity of the natural resource, environmental and social character. In the past, development activities which are focused on growth and led to negative impacts of ecological deterioration and depletion of natural resources. Therefore, the management of national resources and the environment in the future should be based on an important aspect of the production and activity space for conservation and environmental health. Therefore, regional development, urban and rural, can no longer be based solely on economic development, but should be based on sustainable development (Hall and Ulrich, 2000).

Hereinafter defined sustainable development as "development that is intended to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the opportunities of future generations to meet life" (IISD, 2005). According Askary (2003) sustainable development and environmentally sound can be defined as "a conscious and deliberate effort, which integrates the environment, including resource into the development process for assure abilities, well-being and quality of life for present and future generations to come". While the concept of sustainable development by Urban 21 (2000) is how to improve the quality of life in a region, including the quality of the ecological, cultural, political, institutional and socio-economic components without leaving a burden (depletion of natural resources and increasing debt) on the next generation.

On the other hand, Munro (1995) states that sustainable development is a set of activities that can improve the lives of people in various aspects and the increase can be maintained. Meanwhile, world commission for environment and development (WECD) defines sustainable development as development that is intended to meet the needs of present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. In other words, sustainable development is defined as development that prioritize the use of resources that do not jeopardize the future use (WECD, 1987). Not only that, the sustainability here should include the three basic principles of the above, one can not only fulfilled. In its development, sustainable development is also intended to seek innovative strategies to change the institutional structure and policies and changes in the behavior of the individual to the global level (IISD, 2005).

In order for development to be sustainable it ideally benefits must be sustainable and continuously maintained. This means that development must meet a variety of objectives in a balanced way, both economic, environmental, and social (WCED, 1987; Munro, 1995; Meadows, 1999; IISD, 2005).

1. Economically Sustainable
Economically sustainable principles relating to costs and benefits, rather the benefits should outweigh the impact. Sustainable economic system must be able to produce goods and services continually, to keep management and other levels of government.

2. Socially Sustainable
Socially sustainable means reflects the interaction between development and the social norms prevailing in society. An activity is socially sustainable if it can integrate with social norms or not contrary to the public tolerance to change. Socially sustainable system must be able to achieve uniformity of distribution, the provision of social services including health and education, as well as accountability and participation.

3. Environmentally Sustainable
Ecologically sustainable, it implies to keep humans and other species that interact with it, now and in the future, so as to improve the quality of life. Environmentally sustainable system must be able to maintain stable resources, avoiding excessive exploitation of renewable resource systems, and maintain the natural resources that can not be updated so that it can be used optimally. In other words, development should not destroy the ecosystem that now exists, instead the species should be conserved for future purposes.

In development and implementation of sustainable development, the role of local government is very fundamental. As a self-regulating system, a local government consisting of a control system (government) and an object (or the community). The local government will play a role as an institution that has legitimacy and is responsible for the development and implementation of sustainable development through the policy-making process does. In an effort to generate policy-oriented cities to achieve sustainable conditions, local governments will need a set of indicators that will provide direction and guidance to local authorities about whether the policies that have been implemented are on the ideal track. Development of indicators of sustainable development is one of The set action towards more sustainable development.

Operationalization or implementation of the concept of sustainable development requires indicators to assess its effectiveness, in this case to know whether an activity, program or policy can be said to be sustainable (sustainable) or unsustainable (unsustainable). These indicators will provide advice to the government regarding the actions to be taken to overcome the problems faced. Need for indicators that are specifically developed to look at the internal management of local governments in determining whether a city has implemented a policy of sustainable development. Although global commitment to sustainable development implementation formally developed after the declaration of Johannesburg in 2002, but the efforts of indicators of sustainability have started much earlier.

Ideal criteria for the sustainable development indicators (Warren, 1997):

1. Indicators should reflect a basic or fundamental long-term economic and social environment for generations to come;
2. Easy to understand and clear: simple, understandable and accessible to the public;
3. Can be quantitatified;
4. Sensitive to changes in the location or group of people;
5. Predictive and anticipatory;
6. Have a reference or threshold value;
7. Relatively easy to use;
8. Aspects of quality: the methodology used to construct the indicators should be clearly defined with accurate, scientifically and socially acceptable, and
9. Sensitive to the Time: if applied every year to show the trend indicator representative.

Corporate Governance Corporate and Social Responsibility Disclosure

To what extent corporate governance and CSR are converging in international business not only depends on views on corporate governance, but also on how CSR is framed within an MNE. As mentioned in the introduction, CSR is an elusive concept that, just as corporate governance, has been defined in many different ways. Nevertheless, there is some agreement that it involves attention on a voluntary basis to the ethical, social and environmental implications of business (Carroll, 1999; Whetten et al., 2002). One important dimension for how CSR is framed concerns its scope: is it perceived as an external or internal issue? Deakin and Hobbs (2007) argue that CSR is often thought of by managers of listed firms as a way of dealing with external issues, for example the ethical consequences of outsourcing production activities, fair trade, and global environmental problems. However, these authors also indicate that CSR is sometimes interpreted differently as well, focusing on internal issues instead. They give the example of the European Commission, which argued in a Green Paper that besides an external dimension, CSR has an internal dimension, which involves employees’ working conditions such as work force diversity and equal pay for women (EC, 2003). The distinction between internal and external aspects of CSR touches upon one of the main debates in corporate governance: if firms have a responsibility to a wider group of constituents, how far should this responsibility go and what kind of (social and environmental) activities will they become involved in?

It was with these questions in mind that the stakeholder approach was first introduced (Freeman and Reed, 1983). This approach explains why business has responsibilities that go beyond the maximization of profits to include the interests of non-stock holding agents. Indeed, if a company would focus solely on such narrow objectives, the expectations of other stakeholders would be neglected, and in turn their support could be compromised in the long term. Freeman’s (1984, p. 46) definition of stakeholders as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives” is most widely accepted (Mitchell et.al., 1997).

Advocates of the stakeholder perspective consider as a starting point that “all persons or groups with legitimate interests participating in an enterprise do so to obtain benefits and that there is no prima facie priority of one set of interests and benefits over another” (Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 68). From such a perspective, a company emerges as a nexus of implicit and explicit contracts between various actors with interests that are not always congruent (Hill and Jones, 1992). The stakeholder approach emphasizes that actors have different motivations to engage in relationships with a firm and expect different benefits from their collaboration. This means that dealing with stakeholders poses complexities for business in view of conflicting interests (cf. Daily et al., 2003). Researchers in finance and governance also criticise the concept (Jensen, 2001; Sternberg, 1997), inter alia because it is “a convenient portmanteau expression into which many different items can be packed” (Charkham, 2005, p. 20). Another important argument has been that the stakeholder approach makes managers unaccountable for their actions because it does not contain clues on how to balance competing interests and thus gives managers the opportunity to pursue their own causes (Bradley et al., 1999; Jensen, 2001).

In prioritizing competing stakeholder interests, it has been argued that firms take into account to what extent the organization depends on a stakeholder for resources (Jawahar and McLaughlin, 2001). This instrumental view on CSR suggests that firms’ primary reason to be responsive to stakeholders is a maximization of long-term market value (Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Jensen, 2001). Such instrumental motives are closely connected to the way corporate governance has broadened in recent years. As discussed above, a corporate governance view suggests that the main reason for firms to deal with stakeholders is that neglecting them could mean a loss of control on the strategic direction and performance (Luo, 2005a). We therefore expect that firms driven by instrumental motives to practice CSR will predominantly be concerned with shareholders and inside stakeholders such as managers and employees, and, as a consequence, frame CSR with a focus on internal aspects. This is supported by the literature which has found that corporate governance has a considerable impact on internal CSR issues such as employee conditions (Deakin et al., 2002) and ethical aspects related to remuneration, managerial and employee behaviour (Bonn and Fisher, 2005; Kimber and Lipton 2005; Rossouw 2005; Ryan, 2005; Wieland, 2005).

In contrast, motives to deal with outside stakeholders may be seen as not as closely, or not only, connected to instrumental motives, but relying also, and perhaps more, on sustaining moral legitimacy vis-à-vis outsider groups (Suchman, 1995). When CSR is mainly a response to outside stakeholders such as local communities and NGOs, it is more likely to be perceived as dealing with external environmental and community issues (Deakin and Hobbs, 2007). On the basis of this, it can be argued that external framing of CSR shares considerably less commonalities with corporate governance. This would imply that framing CSR focusing on external issues puts much less emphasis on the competitive nature of CSR. Only in a small minority of cases implications for a firm’s strategic direction and performance may be involved – an example that is currently mentioned in this regard is climate change, but this is still in its infancy (cf. Cogan, 2006). On the whole, we thus expect that corporate governance is more likely to be integrated in MNEs’ CSR policies when CSR is framed with a strong focus on internal aspects such as employee conditions and ethical behavior of managers and employees.

Factors Influencing Environmental Accounting Information System Design

An entity's environmental strategy indicates both the entity's dedication and motivation to incorporate environmental stewardship in its daily activities; this may affect both external and internal reporting demands of an environmental accounting information system. A firm only interested in legitimizing its actions to society or appeasing its stakeholders (Islam and Deegan, 2008) may outfit their information system differently than a firm that finds it economically beneficial to aggressively pursue an environmental stewardship strategy (Clarkson et.al., 2008). Also, governmental and not-for-profit entities may have different considerations from for-profit firms when developing their environmental strategies since no profit motive exists (Ball, 2005; Herbohn, 2005). Even within governmental agencies, strategies will vary depending on whether an objective relates to environmental stewardship of the agency's actions or establishment and enforcement of environmental regulations (Cormier et.al., 2004) for a model on corporate environmental reporting, which considers company management assessments of stakeholder influences on a company's environmentally related actions).

Stakeholders' power (or lack thereof) to influence an entity's actions can impact the entity's environmental objectives and strategies (Aerts and Cormier, 2009; Darnell et.al., 2009; Magness, 2006; Neu et.al., 1998). Communications from an entity's management concerning environmental issues may positively or negatively impact the development of a system, as noted in a number of case studies (Ball, 2005; Dey, 2007; Herbohn, 2005). Thus, an entity's strategy towards environmental stewardship will impact the environmental accounting information system developed, and the types and level of management communications on environmental issues moderate this effect.

Experimental methods can contribute to the literature by focusing on these factors in ways that extend the archival and case study findings. Specifically, the reported associations within these studies can be extended with experiments to better understand why the associations exist. Environmental strategies can be manipulated in a laboratory setting (e.g. stakeholder appeasement strategies, pro-environmental versus pro-economic strategies, etc.) to help determine which entity strategies result in certain manager decisions that influence the ways that environmental data are implemented into an accounting information system. Stakeholder influences can be manipulated (e.g. strong external pressures, weak interactions with the entity, etc.) and studied to observe how decision makers respond to these pressures when forming the entity's environmental strategy. The model suggests that the environmental strategy employed determines the way in which an entity's environmental information system is implemented.

Environmental accounting information systems
After considering how stakeholder influences and an entity's environmental strategy molds the implementation of an environmental information system, the model emphasizes considering data organization and data quality in designing experiments on environmental accounting information systems. Relative to traditional accounting information, environmental accounting information comprises lower levels of user familiarity (Gray and Bebbington, 2001), which may hinder effective processing of this non-traditional data. This unfamiliarity may very well be contributing to the resistance organizations experience when an environmental accounting initiative struggles to make progress (Ball, 2005; Dey, 2007; Herbohn, 2005).

Experiments can explore any potential underlying psychological mechanisms that may contribute to organizational resistance (Ball, 2005) or cognitive difficulties (Kaplan and Wisner, 2009) associated with effectively using environmental data. The current literature is mainly silent on providing these types of explanation; experiments have the potential to extend the literature by determining why certain behaviors and decisions are observed.

To provide an example of psychological factors that may be important to explore in an environmental accounting context yet does not receive much attention in the extant literature, consider the following about the nature of environmental data. The organizational display of environmental data, and their combination with non-environmental metrics, warrants a particular and unique concern to decisions involving environmental information because of the unfamiliarity and potential complexity of this non-traditional data. Different types of data organization and different levels of data quality are well-known factors that impact the cognitive processing of information (Schkade and Kleinmuntz, 1994), so it is important to understand these cognitive influences on the capturing and presentation of environmental data in the implementation of accounting information systems. A better understanding of why behaviors and decisions occur would be helpful in determining how to mitigate factors such as cognitive biases in the processing of environmental information. Data organization and data quality are further explored below.

Data organization
The organization component of displayed data relates to the data visual structure (Schkade and Kleinmuntz, 1994). For example, a traditional way to organize a balanced scorecard's data is to classify and present the data in four perspectives (financial, customers, internal business processes, and learning and growth). When new data are considered to be included in the scorecard, there is debate on whether the new data organization should result in a new, fifth perspective, or whether the data should be embedded within the traditional perspectives. In Kaplan and Wisner's (2009) study, these "new data" are environmental metrics. In their experimental design, the data organization's manipulation includes a four-perspective scorecard in which environmental data embed within the traditional four perspectives, or a five-perspective scorecard in which a standalone fifth perspective isolates and groups environmental data together.

Another way to analyze data organization in an evaluative context includes considering its evaluation mode. In separate evaluation (SE) mode, alternatives are presented and evaluated sequentially. In joint evaluation (JE) mode, alternatives are presented and evaluated jointly (Fischhoff et.al., 1980). For example, assume a manager must analyze evaluations from three employees who are competing for the same promotion within the firm. If the employee analyzes the candidates for promotion in SE mode, then the manager will analyze each candidate's information one at a time. She will finish analyzing the first candidate before moving on to evaluate the second candidate. However, if the manager evaluates the candidates in JE mode, then she will analyze the candidates' information together and at the same time. When alternatives are analyzed in JE mode, direct comparisons can be made between the alternatives (and thus establish a reference point) that are not available for evaluations made in SE mode.

Environmental Disclosures and Economic Performance

A second general category of archival research explores the relationships between environmental disclosures, environmental performance, and/or financial performance. Overall, the results vary in the direction and magnitude of these associations. Li et.al. (1997) find increased disclosures of environmental information when firms are more likely to pollute, when stakeholders become more aware of the firms' environmental liabilities, and when threats to obtaining regulatory costs decline. Cho et.al. (2006) find that companies with higher political lobbying efforts have increased environmental disclosures and lower environmental performances, suggesting a management strategy to influence environmental regulatory procedures. Patten (2002) finds a negative correlation between environmental disclosures and environmental performance, and the correlation is more pronounced among firms in non-ESIs. Social and political pressures may explain the negative correlation. Bad environmental performance leads to pressure to disclose, and ESIs are not affected as much by this pressure because they already receive more scrutiny.

Sociopolitical pressures may also help explain findings of negative correlations between environmental footnote disclosures and both American firms' level of business outside of the USA (fear of being perceived as a polluter) and firms' earnings volatility (fear of bad news exasperating low-earnings periods; Karim et.al., 2006). Cho et.al. (2010) find a similar usage of disclosures when considering the language of US annual reports; the worse the corporate environmental performance, the more optimistic and vague the environmental disclosure language in the entity's annual report.

Al-Tuwaijri et.al. (2004) find different results from Patten (2002) when they consider endogeneity among environmental performance, financial performance, and environmental disclosures. They find positive links, suggesting that environmental stewardship and economic success do not have to be adversarial objectives (see Frooman (1997) and Orlitzky et.al. (2003) for meta-analysis providing general support for a positive relationship between corporate socially responsible behavior and financial performance). Ruf et.al. (2001) use stakeholder theory to explain a broader positive link between corporate social performance and financial performance, suggesting that firms better serve their shareholders when they address other stakeholder concerns. Indeed, environmental disclosures on company web sites suggest that companies perceive environmental issues as a competitive advantage instead of a regulatory burden (Jose and Lee, 2007). In contrast to the above results, Murray et.al. (2006) find no relation between UK companies' stock returns and their environmental and social disclosures. However, there was a positive relationship between a company's level of disclosures and the consistency of their financial returns (i.e. high disclosure levels correlated with consistently high returns, and vice versa).

In another study on market reactions, Blacconiere and Northcut (1997) show that the market-valued environmental disclosure information surrounding US environmental regulations in 1986 (the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act). Specifically, chemical companies with pre-1986 environmental disclosures received better market reactions compared to companies with environmental cost information disclosed by the EPA relating to the legislation and indicating greater environmental cost risks. Investors seem to view corporate disclosures as an indicator of the company adequately mitigating environmental cost risks such as regulatory burdens. This finding supports Blacconiere and Patten's (1994) earlier analysis of a different critical event - the 1984 Union Carbide chemical leak incident in Bhopal, India. In this study, investors also appeared to respond more favorably (i.e. not as negatively) to chemical companies that disclosed environmental information more thoroughly before the incident occurred. Magness (2010) echoes this favorable response to prior environmental disclosures in a study on investor reactions to an accident in the Canadian mining industry. In this study, investors react particularly favorable (i.e. moderate negative reactions) to companies disclosing that they have upper level company involvement in environmental issues. In a sample of pulp and paper companies, Clarkson et.al. (2004) show that environmental capital expenditures yield gains for low-polluting companies, but not their high-polluting counterparts. Also, investors utilize data on companies' environmental performances to assess future environmental liabilities that are yet to be recognized.

Clarkson et.al. (2008) attempt to resolve tension in the different frameworks used to explain the link between environmental disclosures and environmental performance. Specifically, they conclude that US companies involved in ESIs have a positive relationship between voluntary environmental disclosures and environmental performance. These findings support economic theories of discretionary disclosure and not social-political frameworks such as legitimacy theory. However, for companies experiencing pressure for better environmental performance by external stakeholders, the social-political frameworks do provide a structure for predicting disclosures of environmental information when the company has not made a hard commitment to disclose the information.

Overall, archival environmental accounting studies have tested, with much success, the legitimacy framework's ability to support the pattern of environmental disclosures observed among companies. One consequence of the evidence supporting legitimacy theory results in the possibility that firms disclose environmental information simply to gain permission from society to operate. Thus, if society is appeased by only a firm's level of information disclosure (i.e. words but not necessarily action), then improved environmental performance cannot be a guaranteed outcome. This may explain the studies that found no association (Walden and Stagliano, 2003) or failed to find a positive (Patten, 2002) correlation between environmental disclosures and environmental performance. However, other studies reviewed find a positive relationship between disclosure and performance (both environmental and financial), which would support more economic-based disclosure paradigms (i.e. firms disclose because they can back up their information claims, thus it is their competitive advantage to disclose) compared to socio-political frameworks such as legitimacy theory (Clarkson et.al., 2008). Model miss-specification, e.g. not considering endogeneity among the variables, may be driving these conflicting results (Al-Tuwaijri et.al., 2004), so this debate would benefit from more research.

Advantages of archival research methods include analyzing data from a broad portion of the test population, so results can be fairly generalized to the whole population. Since financial data usually captures consistent and high-quality information, archival methods are a good approach to addressing financial environmental accounting inquiries. However, an archival study can only suggest correlations between two variables because the variables are not manipulated and isolated (i.e. "turning one dial at a time") (Shadish et.al., 2002). Thus, the archival method cannot show causation as well as why an association between variables exists.

Relevance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Allowances in the United States SO2 Market

Data dilaporkan dalam sebuah artikel Wall Street Journal baru-baru ini (Abboud, 2008) mengindikasikan bahwa walaupun Uni Eropa (UE) berjanji mengenai pengurangan 8% emisi pada tahun 2008-2012 dengan tahun dasar 1990, emisi gas rumah kaca (GRK) dari industri kunci telah meningkat sekitar 1% setiap tahun sejak program tersebut. Mekanisme yang dipilih oleh WU untuk mengurangi emisi karbon dioksida adalah market-based cap dan sistem perdagangan, yang dilaksanakan pada bulan Januari 2005 (Uni Eropa, 2003). Bentuk peraturan “cap” jumlah karbon dioksida yang dihasilkan oleh industri kunci. Jika anggota industri tidak dapat mencapai target yang ditentukan, mereka harus membeli ijin di pasar terbuka untuk emisi karbon dioksida. Menurut Abboud (2008), "... dengan memaksa perusahaan untuk membeli dan menjual hak untuk polusi, sistem Eropa seharusnya memberi mereka insentif keuangan untuk membersihkan tindakan mereka. Sementara, mekanisme tersebut belum memunculkan hasil sesuai yang diinginkan di Uni Eropa. sementara itu pada pasar serupa, seperti pasar perdagangan emisi sulfur dioksida (SO2) AS telah berhasil memunculkan sesuai dengan yang diinginkan(Burtraw, 1996; Schmalensee, 1998).

Komunikasi biaya yang diinternalisasi yang terkait dengan perdagangan emisi tradisional akan terungkap ke pasar modal melalui pengungkapan wajib (mandatory) atau sukarela (voluntary). Dalam pengaturan ini, hanya sedikit pengungkapan sukarela (belum) terjadi dan, lebih lanjut, IFRS (Badan Standar Pelaporan Internasional Federal) tidak meliputi pengungkapan aktifitas wajib. Untungnya, ketika US GAAP (Standar Akuntansi Keuangan AS) tidak meliputi pengungkapan wajib atau ijin kegiatan lainnya, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) sebenarnya tidak memerlukan pengungkapan ijin persediaan terkait dengan “cap” AS serta pasar perdagangan untuk emisi SO2, dan US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) memberikan data tentang ijin kegiatan perdagangan. Oleh karena itu kita dapat mengetahui nilai pasar atas izin emisi dengan berfokus pada pasar perdagangan SO2 AS. studi ini mengeksplorasi relevansi nilai dari emisi SO2 dan strategi yang digunakan oleh para manajer untuk mengelola risiko dan biaya yang terkait dengan hak emisi.

Seperti disebutkan dalam Bebbington dan Larrinaga (2008), edisi khusus European Accounting Review berfokus pada isu-isu akuntansi dan pelaporan yang berkaitan dengan emisi gas rumah kaca. Penting untuk dicatat bahwa SO2 bukan gas rumah kaca (GHG). Studi ini memfokuskan analisis pada pemberian emisi SO2 karena terkait dengan SO2 “cap” AS dan pasar perdagangan telah ada sejak tahun 1995. Sebaliknya, emisi program penyisihan karbon dioksida (CO2) Uni Eropa hanya diimplementasikan pada tahun 2005. Akibatnya, terdapat keterbatasan data dari pasar Uni Eropa untuk menyelidiki secara empiris implikasi valuasi dari pengurangan emisi. Sehingga studi ini beralih ke pasar perdagangan dengan “cap” AS, dimana data tersebut tersedia secara umum.

Emisi GHG dan SO2 berbeda dalam hal dampak dan solusi yang tersedia. Sebagai contoh, gas rumah kaca memiliki konsekuensi global jauh lebih luas daripada emisi SO2 karena efeknya pada perubahan iklim. Selain itu, pemasangan scrubber merupakan pilihan untuk mengurangi emisi SO2, tapi tidak untuk semua GHG. Namun demikian, ada kesamaan antara keduanya. Terutama, perijinan emisi sekarang merupakan mekanisme utama yang digunakan untuk mengurangi tingkat emisi baik SO2 dan gas rumah kaca. Terkait dengan hal ini, program dan model perijinan emisi CO2 Uni Eropa, secara terpisah, setelah program SO2 AS dan, karenanya, banyak saham dengan karakteristik yang sama. Sebagai hasilnya, studi ini percaya bahwa kesimpulan dari pemeriksaan relevansi nilai perijinan emisi SO2 AS memberikan pandangan awal mengenai bagaimana pasar dapat menerima pengungkapan terkait dengan perdagangan CO2 di Uni Eropa.

Pada basis tahunan baik pasar US SO2 dan EU CO2, mengatur otoritas yang mengalokasikan perijinan emisi yang mempengarui perusahaan. Perijinan tersebut adalah tanpa biaya pada perusahaan dan alokasi tersebut diformulasikan, berdasar pada emis dalam periode dasar. Ide dibalik pasar tersebut bahwa sepanjang waktu otoritas regulator akan menyesuaikan formula untuk mengurangi jumlah keseluruhan perijinan yang diberikan. Hal ini mengurangi emisi keseluruhan, tapi memungkinkan tiap perusahaan untuk menentukan metode yang tepat untuk mengelola emisi mereka sendiri. Meskipun tanpa biaya ketika diberikan, perijinan (allowances) memiliki value. Allowances yang belum digunakan dapat dijual pada perusahaan lain yang tidak mempunyai kecukupan allowances untuk menutup perencanaan emisi mereka.

Untuk memahami value relevance dari emissions allowances sebagai lawan dari emisi itu sendiri, studi ini menguji allowances yang diberikan lebih dari tingkat emission saat ini. Sampel ini konsisten dengan subyek US utilities pada skema emisi perdagangan yang dimasukkan ke dalam Clean Air Act Amendments 1990. Studi ini berfokus pada pasar AS karena terdapat publikasi data yang tersedia untuk sample yang mempengaruhi perusahaan dan banyak perusahaan perdagangan public.

Fitur lain dalam pasar AS adalah bahwa ketika allowances diberikan oleh regulatory authority dalam vintage year, mereka tidak berakhir. Dengan demikian, perusahaan dapat membeli vintage allowances saat ini dan ‘bank’ mereka untuk penggunaan masa depan. Satu fungsi dari allowance bank ini adalah untuk mengurangi arus kas keluar masa depan yang berkaitan dengan emisi. Cara lain untuk mengurangi arus kas keluar tersebut adalah dengan investasi teknologi “scrubber”. Tentu saja, penggunaan “allowance banks” versus “scrubber technology” adalah tidak eksklusive. Untuk memiliki portfolio dari plants dan stacks mungkin lebih ekonomis untuk membeli scrubber technology untuk beberapa stacks daripada yang lain. Biaya perijinan adalah satu faktor dalam membuat trade-off tersebut.

Terdapat perbedaan fundamental dalam pendekatan pengurangan future cash outflows across dalam dua strategi tersebut. Pada satu sisi, scrubber technology adalah investasi modal yang besar, yang memberikan pengurangan emisi jangka panjang, dengan demikian secara permanen mengurangi jumlah emisi yang diperlukan. sebaliknya, allowance bank adalah lebih dari sebuah strategi operasi. Ini merupakan investasi yang kurang signifikan dan memungkinkan perusahaan untuk terus emitting pada tingkat historis dalam jangka pendek. Karenanya, allowance bank memiliki karakteristik pilihan nyata dengan memungkinkan manajemen untuk menunda investasi modal yang besar dalam scrubbers. Perijinan Emisi, karena itu, memiliki dua komponen yang cenderung dinilai oleh pasar: (1) milai asset terkait dengan harga jual/pengurangan biaya; dan (2) pilihan nyata nilai yang terkait dengan penundaan investasi capital.

Dalam studi ini, studi ini memvalidasi bahwa pasar secara positif menilai baik allowance banks dan investments dalam scrubber technology sebagai cara untuk mengurangi future cash outflows, dan menginvestigasi apakah market values baik aset dan komponen opsi riil (real option components) dari yang diijinkan. Untuk melakukannya, analisis ini terdiri dari 2 langkah. Pertama, menganalisis asosiasi dari market value of equity perusahaan dengan jumlah emisi yang diijinkan dan menginvestasikannya dalam bidang teknologi. Seperti yang telag diprediksi, hasilnya mengindikasikan bahwa jumlah banked emission allowances dan investment dalam scrubbers untuk mengendalikan emisi secara positif berasosiasi dengan market value. Konsekuensinya, hal itu bahwa market incorporates minimal nilai aset dari banked emissions diijinkan melalui market value of equity perusahaan.

Untuk mengetahui apakah pasar juga menghargai komponen pilihan nyata dari allowance bank, studi ini meneliti reaksi harga saham terhadap peristiwa yang melibatkan pembelian emissions allowances selama lelang disponsori oleh US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Untuk pembelian allowance, reaksi harga saham non-positif akan menunjukkan bahwa pasar baik (1) meliahat pembelian allowance sebagai peristiwa negatif, karena perusahaan terus mencemari dan mungkin menghadapi konsekuensi ekonomi masa depan berkenaan dengan penigkatan emisi (dalam kasus reaksi negatif), atau (2) dilihat pembelian allowance hanya sebagai perdagangan aset tunai untuk non tunai (dalam kasus tidak terdapat reaksi).

Hasil event study adalah beragam. Di satu sisi, studi ini menemukan bahwa perusahaan pembelian allowances emission pada pengalaman lelang USEPA, rata-rata abnormal return positif yang signifikan berbeda dari nol. Temuan ini memberikan dukungan untuk dugaan bahwa nilai entitas allowance bank memiliki dua komponen (nilai aktiva dan nilai pilihan nyata), dan pasar memberikan nilai positif bagi keduanya. Namun, ketika kita membandingkan abnormal return pembelian perusahaan pada abnormal return sesuai dengan sampel kontrol perusahaan, rata-rata perbedaan antara keduanya adalah tidak signifikan. Jadi, jika patokan yang tepat untuk mengevaluasi abnormal return yang signifikan untuk aplikasi pembelian adalah abnormal return pendamping yang cocok (bukan nol), maka pasar hanya muncul untuk harga komponen nilai aset dengan allowance emission.

Value Relevance dan Environmental Accounting

Berawal pada Amir dan Lev (1996), sebagian besar badan literatur akuntansi mengeksplorasi value relevance dari informasi non keuangan. Kesimpulan umum yang berkembang dari penelitian tersebut adalah informasi akuntansi (keuangan) dan investasi fundamental yang terkait seperti arus kas dan laba tidak terpisah menjelaskan variasi dalam return saham. Barth dan McNichols (1994) serta Hughes (2000) berargumen bahwa indikator non keuangan kinerja lingkungan memiliki komponen kewajiban tak tercatat yang dinilai oleh pasar modal. Lebih jauh, Daniel dan Titman (2006) menunjukkan bahwa future earning tidak terkait dengan ukuran akuntansi tradisional dari kinerja masa lalu (seperti earnings dan book values), yang didefinisikan sebagai informasi tangible. Selanjutnya, return saham dijelaskan oleh adanya intangible information tentang kinerja masa depan, yang independen dari kinerja masa lalu.

Partumbuhan gap antara nilai pasar dari saham perusahaan dan nilai bukunya berlanjut menjadi isu penting yang sangat ekstrim dalam perdebatan akademik.Selama beberapa dekade, pertumbuhan yang cepat dari investasi pertanggung jawaban social telah meningkatkan kesadaran investor pada informasi keuangan yang ekstra berkaitan dengan isu environmental, social and governance (ESG) (Renneboog et al., 2008; Brammer et al., 2006). Sejumlah peningkatan studi akademis telah berargumen bahwa informasi ESG membantu investor untuk menilai asset tak berwujud (intangible assets) yang tidak diakui dalam biaya historis berdasar laporan keuangan. Extra-financial information yang diungkapkan melebihi peraturan regulator dan legislasi mencakup kinerja pada nilai penggerak yang berbasis laba keuangan masa depan.

Environmental/social performance mempengaruhi return saham secara langsung melalui penggunaan sumber daya manusia dan materi yang efisien, atau tidak secara langsung melalui image yang positif terhadap nasabah, supplier, dan komunitas (Brammer et al., 2006; Orlitzky et al., 2003). Walaupun literarur pada hubungan antara financial dan environmental/social performance sedang berkembang, terdapat keterbatasan bukti penelitian yang memfokuskan pada penggabungan kembali konstruk corporate environmental/social responsibility dalam rangka mendalami pemahaman ada atau tidaknya nilai pasar perusahaan yang dipengaruhi oleh kriteria non keuangan dan bagaimana keterkaitannya.Oleh karena itu diusulkan bahwa market value perusahaan akan merefleksikan kinerja financial dan nonfinancial environmental/social mereka.

Financial performance tidak berjalan sendiri dalam menjelaskan market value perusahaan, tetapi value relevance dari informasi laporan keuangan dapat dilengkapi jika dikombinasikan dengan informasi environmental/social information yang dihimpun dari opportunities ratings. Dalam instilah research settings, secara berhubungan erat pada studi tentang value relevance dari informasi non-financial environmental dalam Hassel et al. (2005), yang menguji value relevance dari environmental performance sebelum 1990. Hasil mereka mengungkapkan bahwa environmental performance secara negatif berhubungan dengan market value of equity dalam periode waktu dengan menggelembungkan market premiums dalam sektor tertentu.

Dalam studi terdahulu konstruk multidimensi yang mengukur kinerja perusahaan dari dimensi ESG yang luas digunakan (Derwall dan Vermijmeren, 2008; Scholtens dan Zhou, 2008). Pengaruh dari atribut gabungan tersebut adalah bahwa ESG pada level agregat tidak berkaitan dengan ukuran market value measures dan karenanya memfokuskan perhatian pada aspek yang salah dan menghasilkan inferensi yang tidak tepat. Studi ini memberikan bukti empiris dengan menggunakan GES-Investment services opportunity rating selama periode 2000-2010 untuk environmental and social indexes serta subdimensinya.