| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
132683
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The deepwater horizon accident may have shaken the sustainability ratings and indices credibility, but it also reinforced their importance. The objective of this article is to contribute to the improvement of corporate sustainability valuations by investigating if reserves profiles can affect the environmental risk exposure of an Oil & Gas (O&G) corporation. Data on reserves from 2009 to 2012 of 24 listed O&G companies were used to test six hypotheses, addressing how these profiles could relate to the four material environmental risks: climate change, accidents, sensitive area/access, water. The frequency with which companies reported these risks was evaluated using key word in context (KWIC) content analysis. Analysis of variance (Anova) and Student×s t tests were applied to each of the hypotheses. This study shows environmental risks are embedded with the oil and gas reserves. We found the following relationships: (1) companies with heavy oil reserves report more exposure to climate change risks, particularly emissions control; (2) water is more of an issue with companies with higher bitumen and natural gas reserves; and (3) there is significant regional bias in the reporting of the environmental risk factors. These findings have broad implications for the financial industry, governments, investors and lenders alike.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
133152
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Research on interstate mediation tends to assume (implicitly) that regional factors have little effect on the occurrence of mediation. We relax this assumption and advance an explicit regional theory of mediation in which regional ties create a type of bias that motivates both (potential) third parties to mediate conflicts within their region and disputants to select or accept these regional actors as mediators more frequently than non-regional actors. This bias first appears when states belong to the same region. In such situations, the potential third party and disputants likely understand one another better and share common security concerns. Yet regional membership does not explain the variation in mediation behavior within regions. To account for this, we argue that regionally more powerful states, as well as those that share (regional) institutional memberships with the disputants, have greater incentives to mediate than some regional counterparts. We empirically test the effect of these characteristics on the likelihood of mediation in militarized interstate disputes during the period 1946-2000. Our findings uncover support for our argument and suggest that accounting for regional bias is important in explaining mediation patterns in interstate conflict.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|