Library:
Paris Champerret
Madrid
London
Paris Montparnasse
Turin
Berlin
The increasing global concern over climate change has placed significant emphasis on the
transparency and accountability of corporate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This thesis aims
to assess the comparability of GHG emissions information disclosed in the sustainability reports
of companies across the automotive industry, focusing on firms based in both Europe and the
United States. By evaluating the consistency, completeness, and clarity of these disclosures,
this research seeks to identify discrepancies and best practices that influence environmental
accountability in these key regions and industries. The findings are intended to contribute to
the enhancement of reporting standards and promote more effective environmental
comparability within the industry.
The study is structured into two main parts: a literature review and an empirical analysis.
The literature review provides an in-depth exploration of existing environmental reporting
standards and frameworks pertinent to the automotive industry, highlighting the differences and
challenges in GHG emissions reporting between the EU and the USA.
The empirical analysis employs content analysis and a detailed checklist methodology to assess
the comparability of critical GHG elements, including Scopes 1, 2, and 3 emissions, GHG
intensity ratios, GHG reductions, and other significant pollutants like NOx and SOx. These
metrics are applied to a sample of automotive companies, with comparisons made across
regions to identify the influence of key firms’ characteristics such as jurisdiction, governance,
and company size on reporting quality.
The findings reveal that while EU-based companies generally demonstrated better clarity in
their GHG reports, the overall comparability across all companies was weak, with an average
score of just 36.81%. Scope 1 and 2 emissions were the most comparable, yet even these
categories showed limitations in clarity and data normalization. Notably, GHG intensity and
reductions exhibited particularly low comparability, with significant gaps in compliance with
reporting standards.
Regression analyses suggested only weak correlations between firm size and reporting quality,
but a strong negative impact of profitability on GHG reporting. Furthermore, debt levels and
the number of board members showed moderate positive correlations with GHG reporting
quality, highlighting the complex interplay between financial factors and environmental
accountability. However, the multiple linear regression found that the selected variables do not
fully capture the factors driving comparability in this context.
