Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Voluntary
Environmental
Information Disclosure
and Firm Size
Zhongmin Wang
1616 P St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
202-328-5000 www.rff.org
Voluntary Environmental Information Disclosure and
Firm Size: Evidence from the Hydraulic Fracturing
Chemical Registry FracFocus
Zhongmin Wang
Abstract
Most enterprises are small- and medium-sized firms, but scholarship on corporate social
responsibility (CSR) has focused on large corporations. In this paper, I study small, medium, and large
firms' likelihood of engaging in a specific CSR activity—voluntary environmental information disclosure.
I present evidence that in the oil and gas industry, large firms are more likely than small firms to
voluntarily disclose to the general public information about the industrial process of hydraulic fracturing.
© 2014 Resources for the Future. All rights reserved. No portion of this paper may be reproduced without
permission of the authors.
Discussion papers are research materials circulated by their authors for purposes of information and discussion.
They have not necessarily undergone formal peer review.
Contents
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
3. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 5
References ................................................................................................................................ 6
Resources for the Future Wang
1. Introduction
Suppose firms of all sizes are engaged in an industrial process that has the potential to
pollute the local environment. Are small or large firms more likely to voluntarily disclose
information about the industrial process to the general public?
Fellow, Resources for the Future, 1616 P St. NW, Washington DC, 20036; wang@rff.org, 202.328.5036.
This reseach did not receive any outside funding. I thank DrillingInfo and Pennsylvania Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources for providing data, Tom Lyon and Eun-Hee Kim for helpful comments, and
Alex Egorenkov, Xu Liu, and Kuangyuan Zhang for research assistance. Any remaining errors are mine only.
1
Resources for the Future Wang
In this paper, I present empirical evidence from the oil and gas industry that large firms
are more likely than small firms to voluntarily disclose to the general public information about
the industrial process of hydraulic fracturing, which involves the use of toxic chemicals.
Hydraulic fracturing involves injecting large volumes of fluid at high pressure into the
rock to create fractures through which oil and gas may flow out. Chemicals constitute a small
fraction of the fracturing fluid, but their total volume can be substantial. Concerned that those
chemicals could pollute the environment, stakeholders have called for oil and gas operators to
disclose the chemicals they use to fracture each well.
Table 1. States, Disclosure Regulations, and Sample
2
Resources for the Future Wang
The oil and gas industry responded to these calls by supporting the creation of the
fracturing chemical registry website, www.FracFocus.org, which went online on April 11, 2011.
Operators can post on this website the location of a well and the chemicals used.
Data availability limits my sample to 11 of the 13 states. The sample starting date is
always the date on which FracFocus went online. The sample ending dates, listed in column 4 of
Table 1, are either December 31, 2013 or the day immediately before the effective date of a
regulation that mandates disclosure to FracFocus.
The sample of wells for nine states comes from DrillingInfo, a market research firm
whose data are often used by EIA. My sample includes all the oil and gas wells drilled into shale
formations; such wells were all fractured. The Pennsylvania data come from the Pennsylvania
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, and the Louisiana data come from both
DrillingInfo and the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. I use the date on which the
drilling of a well was completed to decide whether to include a well in the sample. The number
of sampled wells for each state is listed in column 5 of Table 1.
The number of sampled wells is quite large, at 11,553, and these wells were drilled by
388 firms. The number of wells drilled per firm ranges from 1 to 1,035. A total of 213 firms
drilled 4 wells or fewer, 43 firms drilled between 5 and 9 wells, 97 firms drilled between 10 and
99 wells, and 35 firms drilled 100 or more wells. The firms that drilled only a few wells are
almost always small private firms with a few employees (Independent Petroleum Association of
America 2012-2013), and the firms that drilled a large number of wells are either medium-sized
enterprises or large corporations. My measure of firms’ sizes is the number of wells they drilled,
which is essentially a measure of their market share in drilling. There are no cases in which a
firm is a large oil and gas producer but drilled only a small number of wells in my sample. I also
3
Resources for the Future Wang
used the number of wells drilled in 2009 and 2010 as an alternative measure of firm size, and the
results, not reported here, are quite similar.
The basic information for every well disclosed at FracFocus, up to early May, 2014, was
downloaded from the website using self-written Perl scripts. Legal scholars (e.g., Konschnik et
al. 2013) argue that FracFocus is far from ideal (because, for example, firms’ claim of trade
secrets may be too broad), but they do not dispute that the information disclosed at the website is
useful. Because every well has a unique ID called the API number, I can easily identify whether
a well in my sample is disclosed at FracFocus.
60
Figure 1 plots the percentage of wells disclosed against firm size and also shows the
associated LOWESS (locally weighted scatterplot smoothing) curve. The disclosure rate appears
to be an increasing and concave function of firm size. For example, the average disclosure rate
for the 122 firms with a single well is 18.9 percent (23 of 122 wells), and the average disclosure
rate for the 35 firms with 100 wells or more is 68.7 percent.
I use the logit model to estimate how firm size affects disclosure probability. The logit
model controls for time trend, which is defined as the number of days between a well’s
completion date and FracFocus’ first date of operation. I do not attempt to control for factors
that may explain variations in disclosure rate across states because my main finding holds up
even if I run the logit model for each individual state separately. Table 2 reports the maximum
likelihood estimates of five logit models. Model 1 considers the full sample of wells. Model 2
considers states and time periods without disclosure regulations, and Model 3 considers states
and time periods with regulations. Models 4 and 5 further separate the states with disclosure
regulations into voluntary and semi-voluntary states. Due to space considerations, the results for
4
Resources for the Future Wang
the individual states are not reported here. The estimated coefficients for firm size are positive
and highly statistically significant in all five models, and the estimated coefficients for the square
of firm size are negative and highly statistically significant in four of the five models. These
results indicate that firm size has a positive impact on the odds of disclosure in all types of states
and that the marginal effect tends to decline with firm size. The time trend could be positive or
negative.
Table 2. Estimates of Logit Models
3. Conclusion
My results indicate that larger firms are more likely to voluntarily disclose information at
FracFocus, whether the firms are operating in states and time periods with or without specific
voluntary fracturing disclosure regulations. This finding suggests that the existing result that size
affects large corporations’ likelihood of engaging in CSR activities extends to firms of all sizes.
It would be interesting for future research to investigate the mechanisms underlying my finding.
My finding does not imply that small firms are inherently less socially responsible. Small firms
may or may not undertake other CSR activities that I do not study in my paper.
5
Resources for the Future Wang
References
Arora, Seema, and Timothy N. Cason. 1996. “Why Do Firms Volunteer to Exceed
Environmental Regulations? Understanding Participation in EPA’s 33/50 Program.”
Land Economics 72(4): 413-32.
Commission of the European Communities. 2006. “Implementing the Partnership for Growth
and Jobs: Making Europe a Pole of Excellence on Corporate Social Responsibility.”
Available at http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2006:0136:FIN:en:PDF
Joskow, Paul. 2013. “Natural Gas: From Shortage to Abundance in the United States.” American
Economic Review: Paper and Proceedings 103(3): 338–43.
Kim, Eun-Hee, and Thomas P. Lyon. 2011. “Strategic Environmental Disclosure: Evidence from
the DOE’s Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Registry.” Journal of Environment Economics and
Management 61: 311-326
Kitzmueller, Markus, and Jay Shimshack. 2012. “Economic Perspectives on Corporate Social
Responsibility.” Journal of Economic Literature 50(1): 51-84.
Konschnik, Kate, Margaret Holden, and Alexa Shasteen. 2013. “Legal Fractures in Chemical
Disclosure Laws: Why the Voluntary Chemical Disclosure Registry FracFocus Fails as a
Regulatory Compliance Tool.” Available at
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/environmentallawprogram/files/2013/04/4-23-2013-
LEGAL-FRACTURES.pdf
Videras, Julio, and Anna Alberini. 2000. “The Appeal of Voluntary Environmental Programs:
Which Firms Participate and Why?” Contemporary Economic Policy 18(4): 449-61.