IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/rffdps/10840.html

The Benefits and Costs of Environmental Information Disclosure: What Do We Know About Right-to-Know?

Author

Listed:
  • Beierle, Thomas C.

Abstract

Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Environmental Protection Agency and other government agencies removed information from their websites that they feared could invite attacks on critical public and private infrastructure. Accordingly, the benefits and costs of environmental information disclosure programs have come under increasing scrutiny. This paper provides a framework for examining these benefits and costs, and illustrates the framework through three brief case studies of information disclosure programs: risk management planning, materials accounting, and the Sector Facility Indexing Program. The paper closes by using these three cases to outline what we know and still need to find out about information disclosure programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Beierle, Thomas C., 2003. "The Benefits and Costs of Environmental Information Disclosure: What Do We Know About Right-to-Know?," Discussion Papers 10840, Resources for the Future.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:rffdps:10840
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.10840
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/10840/files/dp030005.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.10840?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark Stephan, 2002. "Environmental Information Disclosure Programs: They Work, but Why?," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 83(1), pages 190-205, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xiaofang Chen & P.R. Weerathunga & Mohammad Nurunnabi & K.M.M.C.B. Kulathunga & W.H.M.S. Samarathunga, 2020. "Influences of Behavioral Intention to Engage in Environmental Accounting Practices for Corporate Sustainability: Managerial Perspectives from a Developing Country," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-30, June.
    2. Hyunhoe Bae, 2012. "Reducing Environmental Risks by Information Disclosure: Evidence in Residential Lead Paint Disclosure Rule," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 404-431, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dorit Kerret & George M. Gray, 2007. "What Do We Learn from Emissions Reporting? Analytical Considerations and Comparison of Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers in the United States, Canada, England, and Australia," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 203-223, February.
    2. Beierle, Thomas, 2003. "The Benefits and Costs of Environmental Information Disclosure: What Do We Know About Right to Know?," RFF Working Paper Series dp-03-05, Resources for the Future.
    3. Sean Lonnquist & Deborah Gallagher, 2021. "Use of Fracking Information Disclosure Policies to Reduce Uncertainty in Risk‐Based Decisions," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(3), pages 326-346, May.
    4. Parilina, Elena & Yao, Fanjun & Zaccour, Georges, 2024. "Pricing and investment in manufacturing and logistics when environmental reputation matters," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    5. Graeme Auld & Stefan Renckens, 2017. "Rule-Making Feedbacks through Intermediation and Evaluation in Transnational Private Governance," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 670(1), pages 93-111, March.
    6. Yanhong Tang & Rui Yang & Yingwen Chen & Mengjin Du & Yichen Yang & Xin Miao, 2020. "Greenwashing of Local Government: The Human-Caused Risks in the Process of Environmental Information Disclosure in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-14, August.
    7. Rory Sullivan & Andy Gouldson, 2007. "Pollutant release and transfer registers: examining the value of government‐led reporting on corporate environmental performance," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 263-273, December.
    8. Adler Miserendino, Rebecca & Bergquist, Bridget A. & Adler, Sara E. & Guimarães, Jean Remy Davée & Lees, Peter S.J. & Niquen, Wilmer & Velasquez-López, P. Colon & Veiga, Marcello M., 2013. "Challenges to measuring, monitoring, and addressing the cumulative impacts of artisanal and small-scale gold mining in Ecuador," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 713-722.
    9. Kjell Arne Brekke & Olof Johansson-Stenman, 2008. "The behavioural economics of climate change," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 24(2), pages 280-297, Summer.
    10. Aarti Gupta, 2010. "Transparency to What End? Governing by Disclosure through the Biosafety Clearing House," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 28(1), pages 128-144, February.
    11. Noor Muhammad & Frank Scrimgeour & Krishna Reddy & Sazali Abdin, 2016. "Emission Indices for Hazardous Substances: An Alternative Measure of Corporate Environmental Performance," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 15-26, January.
    12. Thomas C. Beierle, 2004. "The Benefits and Costs of Disclosing Information about Risks: What Do We Know about Right‐to‐Know?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 335-346, April.
    13. Hevina S. Dashwood & Uwafiokun Idemudia & Bill Buenar Puplampu & Kernaghan Webb, 2022. "The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) and local institutions in Ghana’s mining communities: Challenges in understanding barriers to accountability," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 40(5), September.
    14. Scott Marchi & James Hamilton, 2006. "Assessing the Accuracy of Self-Reported Data: an Evaluation of the Toxics Release Inventory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 57-76, January.
    15. Noor Muhammad & Frank Scrimgeour & Krishna Reddy & Sazali Abidin, 2015. "The Impact of Corporate Environmental Performance on Market Risk: The Australian Industry Case," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 132(2), pages 347-362, December.
    16. Solan, Eilon & Zhao, Chang, 2023. "When (not) to publicize inspection results," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    17. Li, Guangqin & Xue, Qing & Qin, Jiahong, 2022. "Environmental information disclosure and green technology innovation: Empirical evidence from China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    18. Hyunhoe Bae & Peter Wilcoxen & David Popp, 2010. "Information disclosure policy: Do state data processing efforts help more than the information disclosure itself?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(1), pages 163-182.
    19. Mitchell, Ronald B., 2011. "Transparency for governance: The mechanisms and effectiveness of disclosure-based and education-based transparency policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1882-1890, September.
    20. Sammy Zahran & Terrence Iverson & Stephan Weiler & Anthony Underwood, 2014. "Evidence that the accuracy of self-reported lead emissions data improved: A puzzle and discussion," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 235-257, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:rffdps:10840. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.