Beyond Single-Theory Explanations: A Dual-Capacity Model of Carbon Disclosure Effectiveness in Sustainable Finance
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55845/jos-2026-22190Keywords:
Carbon Disclosure, Investor Decision-Making, Sustainable Finance, Systematic Literature Review, Dual-Capacity MechanismAbstract
Carbon disclosure has emerged as a central mechanism of sustainable finance, yet its effectiveness in influencing investor decision-making remains theoretically fragmented across legitimacy, signaling, stakeholder, and institutional theory. Applied in isolation, these frameworks generate contradictory findings and leave three gaps unresolved: the absence of integrative frameworks explaining simultaneous mechanism operation, the lack of dynamic models accounting for temporal strengthening, and insufficient boundary condition specification across contexts. This systematic literature review synthesises 44 empirical studies published between January 2015 and June 2025, identified through a Scopus search conducted in July 2025 following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, with inter-rater reliability of k = 0.85 at screening and k = 0.82 at full-text assessment. Four mechanisms are identified: information asymmetry reduction (75% of studies; median b = 0.24), signaling of management quality (57%; b = 0.18 to 0.35), risk communication (50%; b = 0.08 to 0.35), and legitimacy building (39%; b = 0.06 to 0.28). These mechanisms operate simultaneously, with relative dominance shifting across sectors and contexts. Disclosure-investment relationships show temporal strengthening, with median effect sizes rising from b = 0.12 in 2015 to 2018 to b = 0.27 in 2022 to 2025. Three contributions are proposed: a dual-capacity extension of signaling theory suggesting that disclosure effectiveness may depend multiplicatively on information supply and market processing capacity, a cascading legitimacy theory offering one account of temporal strengthening through feedback loops between disclosure and infrastructure development, and boundary conditions specifying mechanism dominance across sectors. Findings carry implications for policymakers, managers calibrating sector-specific reporting, and investors building disclosure-informed portfolios aligned with net-zero objectives.
Downloads
References
Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for "lemons": Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500. https://doi.org/10.2307/1879431 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1879431
Arthur, W. B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Economic Journal, 99(394), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234208 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2234208
Awa, H. O., Etim, W., & Ogbonda, E. (2024). Stakeholders, stakeholder theory and corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 9, Article 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-024-00094-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-024-00094-y
Barber, B. M., Morse, A., & Yasuda, A. (2021). Impact investing. Journal of Financial Economics, 139(1), 162–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2020.07.008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2020.07.008
Bolton, P., & Kacperczyk, M. (2021). Do investors care about carbon risk? Journal of Financial Economics, 142(2), 517–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.05.008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.05.008
Caldecott, B., Harnett, E., Cojoianu, T., Kok, I., & Pfeiffer, A. (2022). Stranded assets: A climate risk challenge. Oxford Sustainable Finance Programme Working Paper. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2538636 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2538636
Carbon Disclosure Project. (2025). Disclosure cycle 2025: Turning transparency to action. CDP Worldwide. https://www.cdp.net/en/disclosure-2025
Chelli, M., Durocher, S., & Richard, J. (2014). France's new economic regulations: Insights from Michel Foucault's theory of governmentality. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 27(2), 283–316. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-07-2013-1388 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-07-2013-1415
Cho, C. H., & Patten, D. M. (2007). The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7–8), 639–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2006.09.009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2006.09.009
Christensen, H. B., Hail, L., & Leuz, C. (2021). Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: Economic analysis and literature review. Review of Accounting Studies, 26(3), 1176–1248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-021-09609-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-021-09609-5
Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D., & Vasvari, F. P. (2008). Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4–5), 303–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2007.05.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2007.05.003
Climate Action 100+. (2023). 2022 progress report. Climate Action 100+. https://www.climateaction100.org/progress/
Cohen, S., Kadach, I., & Ormazabal, G. (2023). Institutional investors, climate disclosure, and carbon emissions. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 76(2–3), Article 101640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2023.101640 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2023.101640
Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310388419 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310388419
Deegan, C. (2002). Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures — A theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282–311. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570210435852 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570210435852
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. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Donaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452229249 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452229249
Fathi, S., Mohammadin, Z., & Azarbayjani, K. (2024). Corporate finance signaling theory: An empirical analysis on the relationship between information asymmetry and the cost of equity capital. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 21(3), 245–268. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-024-00261-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-024-00261-4
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
Galbraith, J. R. (1974). Organization design: An information processing view. Interfaces, 4(3), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.4.3.28 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.4.3.28
Global Sustainable Investment Alliance. (2023). Global sustainable investment review 2022. GSIA. https://www.gsi-alliance.org/
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2022). Climate change 2022: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926
Kleimeier, S., & Viehs, M. (2021). Carbon disclosure, emission levels, and the cost of debt. Finance Research Letters, 38, Article 101440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101440 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101440
Matsumura, E. M., Prakash, R., & Vera-Munoz, S. C. (2014). Firm-value effects of carbon emissions and carbon disclosures. Accounting Review, 89(2), 695–724. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50629 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50629
Morningstar. (2021). Global sustainable fund flows: Q4 2020 in review. Morningstar Research Services. https://www.morningstar.com/lp/global-esg-flows
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808678 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808678
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Gluud, C., Grimshaw, J. M., Hrobjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, Article n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Patten, D. M. (2002). The relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27(8), 763–773. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(01)00058-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(02)00028-4
Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Securities and Exchange Commission. (2022). The enhancement and standardization of climate-related disclosures for investors (Release No. 33-11042). U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2022/33-11042.pdf
Securities and Exchange Commission. (2024). SEC adopts rules to enhance and standardize climate-related disclosures for investors [Press release]. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024-31
Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355–374. https://doi.org/10.2307/1882010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1882010
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.2307/258788 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/258788
Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. (2023). 2023 status report. Financial Stability Board. https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/publications/
Wang, L., Li, W., & Qi, L. (2023). Stakeholder pressures and corporate environmental strategies: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 183(4), 1151–1169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05054-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05054-9
Downloads
Published
Data Availability Statement
No primary dataset was generated. The list of included studies is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Lin Oktris, Afzal Izzaz Zahari, Suharmadi, Hirdinis M

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
Accepted 22-06-2026
Published 05-07-2026