Digital Carbon Management and ESG Greenwashing Risk: A Case Study of BYD's Sustainability Disclosure
Main Article Content
Keywords
ESG disclosure, greenwashing risk, digital carbon management, sustainability reporting, new energy vehicles
Abstract
This paper explores the effect of digital carbon management on ESG greenwashing in corporate sustainability reporting. The paper uses a qualitative single case research design and preliminary textual analysis based on the text of BYD's 2025 Sustainability Report. The results indicate that digital carbon management can lessen the risk of greenwashing through increase in data traceability, disclosure specificity, carbon accounting capability, embedding of governance, and readiness for verification. BYD's iDi Carbon Chain platform is an example of a pathway to transparency, achieved by organizational carbon management, product carbon footprint accounting and compliance reporting. However, the analysis also shows that symbolic sustainability narratives remain central in ESG communication. The paper thus seeks to show that the anti-greenwashing effect of digitalisation is not self-evident. It is dependent on the embedding of digital tools in external standards and board-level governance and verification mechanisms.
References
- [1] Christensen HB, Hail L, Leuz C. Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: economic analysis and literature review. Review of Accounting Studies. 2021; 26(3):1176-1248.
- [2] KPMG International. Big shifts, small steps: Survey of sustainability reporting 2022. KPMG International; 2022.
- [3] Delmas MA, Burbano VC. The drivers of greenwashing. California Management Review. 2011; 54(1):64-87.
- [4] Lyon TP, Montgomery AW. The means and end of greenwash. Organization & Environment. 2015; 28(2):223-249.
- [5] Suchman MC. Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review. 1995; 20(3):571-610.
- [6] BYD Company Limited. 2025 Sustainability Report. BYD Company Limited; 2026.
- [7] Cho CH, Laine M, Roberts RW, Rodrigue M. Organized hypocrisy, organizational facades, and sustainability reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society. 2015; 40:78-94.
- [8] Boiral O. Sustainability reports as simulacra? A counter-account of A and A+ GRI reports. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. 2013; 26(7):1036-1071.
- [9] Michelon G, Pilonato S, Ricceri F. CSR reporting practices and the quality of disclosure: an empirical analysis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting. 2015; 33:59-78.
- [10] Hummel K, Schlick C. The relationship between sustainability performance and sustainability disclosure: reconciling voluntary disclosure theory and legitimacy theory. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy. 2016; 35(5):455-476.
- [11] Burritt RL, Schaltegger S. Sustainability accounting and reporting: fad or trend? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. 2010; 23(7):829-846.
- [12] Bai C, Sarkis J. A supply chain transparency and sustainability technology appraisal model for blockchain technology. International Journal of Production Research. 2020; 58(7):2142-2162.
- [13] Ioannou I, Serafeim G. The consequences of mandatory corporate sustainability reporting. Management Science. 2017; 63(5):1306-1329.
- [14] Global Reporting Initiative. GRI 1: Foundation 2021. Global Reporting Initiative; 2021.
- [15] IFRS Foundation. IFRS S1 General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information and IFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures. International Sustainability Standards Board; 2023.
- [16] International Organization for Standardization. ISO 14064-1:2018 Greenhouse gases - Part 1: Specification with guidance at the organization level for quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and removals. ISO; 2018.
- [17] International Organization for Standardization. ISO 14067:2018 Greenhouse gases - Carbon footprint of products - Requirements and guidelines for quantification. ISO; 2018.
Article Sidebar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.