Commentary and Critique of “Sustainability Reputation and Environmental Performance or ‘The Proof of the Pudding is in the Eating’ by Freedman and Stagliano (2010)”

Abstract

Freedman and Stagliano (2010) study the correlation between sample and matched companies’ revenues and toxic release. The sample companies were chosen based on inclusion in at least one of the three 2006 external reputational sources, which ascertain reputable sustainable companies. Their study uses descriptive statistics for “revenues” and mean difference test results for “toxic release inventory that is divided by revenues” of sample versus matched companies. The authors conclude, “We find no significant difference between the firms that are respected to be engaged in best practices with respect to sustainable development and those that have no such public recognition.” In this critique I suggest a contrary explanation. If one uses a descriptive analysis of the raw data instead of the mean difference test, one may conclude the opposite conclusion. The sample firms have higher revenues and their relevant revenues have lower toxic release inventories than matched firms. Thus, one interpretation is that sample firms were rewarded, by being able to generate more revenues than matched firms, so sample firms appear to be among the leaders in curbing toxic chemical waste.

Citation

Okcabol, F. (2013), "Commentary and Critique of “Sustainability Reputation and Environmental Performance or ‘The Proof of the Pudding is in the Eating’ by Freedman and Stagliano (2010)”", Managing Reality: Accountability and the Miasma of Private and Public Domains (Advances in Public Interest Accounting, Vol. 16), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 221-231. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1041-7060(2013)0000016011