This study examines whether backward-looking corporate environmental disclosure (CED) and forward-looking climate-resilience reporting (CLIM) constitute empirically distinct disclosure architectures in 19 JSE-listed mining firms over 2015–2025 (208 firm-years; 189 consecutive transitions), and whether directors’ ownership helps explain their differences. Original 0–4 scores show that CED is concentrated at score 3 (88.5%). Descriptively, 91.5% of CED transitions retain the same score, compared with 79.4% for CLIM; firm-level trajectories likewise show broader CED stability and greater CLIM movement. These comparisons describe the observed panel and do not provide a formal test of the persistence difference. Because the two constructs use different evidence anchors on the common 0–4 maturity scale, part of the observed contrast may reflect construct-specific rubric calibration. Directors’ ownership is weakly and imprecisely associated with both outcomes, and the adjusted CED–CLIM ownership contrast is statistically indistinguishable from zero. Secondary quadratic and CED institutional-period estimates are sample-sensitive and interpreted descriptively. The contribution is architectural: CED and CLIM differ in content, distribution and temporal behaviour, but those differences do not translate into reliably different ownership sensitivities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fortune Ganda (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: