Statutory vs. Voluntary Climate Disclosure in US Multinationals; analysis of Channel Allocation, Target Architecture and Scope 3

Abstract

Climate change pushed corporations, especially in the energy and manufacturing sectors, to adopt measurable strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Four multinational corporations—Caterpillar, Chevron, ExxonMobil and Microsoft—disclosed and framed their 10-K and sustainability reports from 2010 to 2025 which were examined. Using a qualitative multiple-case design, both these reports were compared alongside to know what firms had to disclose versus what they chose to disclose. A directed content analysis with a transparent analytical scheme revealed three consistent patterns—each analysed across statutory and voluntary channels. First, a statutory–voluntary disclosure gap: heavy industry and energy incumbents treated climate primarily as a risk in 10-Ks and reserved quantitative emissions metrics for voluntary reports; Microsoft was an outlier, progressively embedding sustainability into business disclosures. Second, intensity versus absolute targets: energy incumbents relied on intensity metrics (e.g., portfolio carbon intensity), while Microsoft committed to absolute goals (e.g., zero waste by 2030). Third, Scope 3 emerged as the binding constraint across sectors. The cross-case synthesis identified three decarbonisation logics: compliance & customer enablement (Caterpillar), transition portfolios (Chevron, ExxonMobil) and market-making (Microsoft). The study contributed to disclosure theory (explaining the liability-driven channel gap), institutional logics (sectoral differences) and practice (governance and measurement strategies). Limitations included reliance on secondary documents and a US-listed multinational case focus. The thesis concluded with managerial implications and a roadmap for integrating statutory and voluntary reporting into coherent, decision-useful sustainability disclosure.