


































 

American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business 

and Economics 
ISSN: 2837-1909| Impact Factor : 6.71 

Volume. 11, Number 2; April-June, 2024; 

Published By: Scientific and Academic Development Institute (SADI) 

8933 Willis Ave Los Angeles, California 

https://sadijournals.org/index.php/AIJBE| editorial@sadijournals.org 

 

 

41 
American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and Economics 

https://sadijournals.org/Journals/index.php/sijssh 
 

STAKEHOLDER PRESSURE, CLIMATE FINANCE, AND ESG 

REPORTING: EMPIRICAL RESEARCH 
 

 
1Solberg Horve Mishiwo, 2Evans Yao Vigbedor, 3Benjamin Coffie Alorzuke and 

4Abraham Aborhey 

solberg.mishiwo@stu.ucc.edu.gh/ evansvig@outlook.com/ benalor@abcoffie.com/ aaborhey@htu.edu.gh 
1University of Cape Coast, Ghana, 2Xiamen University, China PR, 3A.B. Coffie (Chartered Accountants) and 

4Ho Technical University 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11092609 

Abstract: It is impossible to overstate the role that climate finance plays in establishing a sustainable business 

climate in emerging nations like Ghana and other African countries. Therefore, the goal of this research is to 

establish how climate finance and stakeholder pressure affect environmental, social, and governance (ESG) 

reporting in publicly traded companies in Ghana. The World Bank sourced data from 20 publicly traded 

businesses listed on the Ghana Stock Exchange between 2014 and 2023. The Panel VAR results showed that 

although there is a short-term correlation between ESG reporting and climate finance, stakeholder pressure, and 

green technology innovation, there is no such long-term relationship in this study. At the same time, the Hausman 

test described a random-effects model that revealed that climate finance and stakeholder pressure have a positive 

and significant effect on ESG reporting. This means that a high level of these factors leads to better ESG disclosure 

among traded companies in Ghana. To increase ESG reporting and overall business performance, developing 

countries like Ghana must gradually strengthen their climate financing systems. 

Keywords: Climate finance, Stakeholder pressure, ESG reporting. Panel VAR, Random-effect Model. 

 

1. Introduction 

In contemporary times, nearly all of the largest corporations globally regularly provide sustainability reports that 

delineate their operational strategies and the ramifications they have on the environment, society, and governance 

(Agyemang et al., 2023a). According to Wiredu et al. (2023), a prominent corporation publishes an annual report 

that provides an overview of its activities’ impact on the economy, society, and environment. The significance of 

environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting has increased in nearly all economies because of the 

escalating global apprehension regarding ecological issues and the consequent imperative to safeguard ecological 

systems.  

Consequently, numerous firms are striving to be more environmentally aware and responsible. Organizations 

such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) are sought after by businesses and governments worldwide to aid 

them in understanding and effectively communicating their influence on environmental, social, and governance 

(ESG) matters. Companies may face pressure from stakeholders to increase their ESG data while simultaneously 

planning strategies to enhance their ESG reporting to remain competitive in the global market. Furthermore, a 

conducive climate foster enhanced ESG reporting, underscoring the imperative of strengthening climate finance 

mailto:solberg.mishiwo@stu.ucc.edu.gh/
mailto:evansvig@outlook.com/
mailto:benalor@abcoffie.com/


 

Solberg Horve Mishiwo, Evans Yao Vigbedor, Benjamin Coffie Alorzuke and Abraham 

Aborhey (2024) 

 

42 
American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and Economics | 

https://sadijournals.org/Journals/index.php/sijssh 

 

to bolster sustainable development in less developed nations. Climate financing, which encompasses local, 

national, or worldwide funding, is provided by public, private, and alternative financial sources to support projects 

aimed at adapting to and mitigating climate change (UNFCCC, 2023).  

Despite the critical role played by Ghana’s National Determined Contributions (NDCs) in establishing a 

framework for climate action, concerns persist regarding the adequacy of resources required to effectively 

implement these ambitious goals. Ghana encounters the further obstacle of maneuvering through a complex 

domestic financial landscape marked by susceptibility to debt in its endeavors to secure climate financing (World 

Bank, 2020). The acquisition of additional climate funding is of utmost importance for Ghana to achieve its 

climate objectives, in addition to meeting its development needs and establishing a foundation for a sustainable 

future (World Bank, 2022). Ghana’s climate finance flows were examined, revealing an average yearly 

monitoring of USD 830 million in 2019 and 2020. This accounts for a meager 5-9% of the projected USD 9.3–

15.5 billion required investment, highlighting the pressing necessity to augment climate spending to achieve 

Ghana’s Nationally Determined Contributions (UNFCCC, 2021).  

Countries often underestimate their budgetary needs because of a lack of knowledge and expertise in making 

accurate estimates, especially regarding adaptation. Additionally, there is a lack of data from subnational 

governments and vulnerable groups. Consequently, this gap is likely to widen (CPI, 2022c). Through the 

publication of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reports, a corporation may effectively showcase to 

the public its commitment to upholding its responsibilities toward its clients, employees, the environment, and 

society rather than solely pursuing profit. The enhancement of sustainability reporting and the incorporation of 

sustainability into business strategy and practices yield numerous advantages, including enhanced legitimacy and 

reputation, increased employee and customer loyalty, decreased expenses, improved business practices, enhanced 

firm performance and valuation, and the cultivation of competitive advantage (Sanchez-Planelles et al., 2020; 

Menassa & Dagher, 2020).  

There is an increasing focus among owners and other stakeholders on firms operating in developing economies, 

with the aim of gaining a deeper understanding of the value they provide and the environmental and societal 

impacts resulting from their activities. The authors, Mensah et al. (2017), have advocated for the implementation 

of a standardized and transparent reporting framework to improve business performance and attract potential 

investors. Companies are adopting more robust self-regulation and demonstrating greater transparency in their 

sustainable practices due to the active participation of stakeholders (Maama & Mkhize, 2020). Hence, it is 

imperative for firms to advance their ESG (environmental, social, and governance) reporting, as an increasing 

number of individuals recognize that the potential risks and challenges impacting a company’s long-term value 

are significantly more complex and diverse than what can be conveyed solely through financial statements. 

Prior research has mostly concentrated on the requirements of stakeholders, as they are the primary drivers of 

sustainability (Higgins et al., 2020; Lulu, 2021). However, none of this research considered the mediating role of 

technological innovation, which is an essential element of sustainability reporting. The research by Ramadini et 

al. (2020) and Krasodomska and Zarzycka (2021) also looked at developed economies using secondary data 

sources and the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) theory. As far as we know, past research has not specifically 

examined developing economies, especially those in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). There is a lack of studies in 

industrialized economies that have investigated the relationship between stakeholder pressure and ecological 

reporting. This is surprising considering the belief that a corporation can impact its various stakeholder groups in 

both beneficial and harmful ways. Stakeholder pressures typically influence sustainability reporting, according to 

prior studies.  



 

Solberg Horve Mishiwo, Evans Yao Vigbedor, Benjamin Coffie Alorzuke and Abraham 

Aborhey (2024) 

 

43 
American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and Economics | 

https://sadijournals.org/Journals/index.php/sijssh 

 

However, the effects of certain stakeholder demands have produced inconclusive findings (Rudyanto & Veronica 

Siregar, 2018). To gain a deeper understanding of the relationship between climate finance, stakeholders’ 

pressures (SP), and sustainability disclosure (SD), additional studies using secondary data from the World Bank 

are necessary. The existing body of research lacks clarity regarding the influence of SP on SD, thus rendering the 

findings of this study susceptible to varying interpretations. The existing body of research mostly centers on the 

significance and transparency of sustainability reports (Higgins et al., 2020; Lulu, 2021). Hence, this paper seeks 

to fill a gap in research by examining the influence of stakeholder pressure and climate finance on Ghana’s ESG 

reporting. This study investigates the impact of stakeholder pressure and climate funding on environmental, 

social, and governance (ESG) reporting inside publicly traded enterprises in Ghana. The primary aims of this 

study are to determine the impact of climate funding and stakeholder pressure on sustainability reporting, 

considering the role of green technology innovation in a developing country such as Ghana. 

2. Literature review 

2.1 Theoretical literature review 

This study is built on stakeholder theory and institutional theory, which are presented in this section. 

2.1.1 Stakeholder theory 

The notion of stakeholder theory is commonly employed to explain the motivations behind firms’ inclination to 

report on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) matters. According to stakeholder theory, firms are 

obligated to consider the interests of all stakeholders, in addition to the owners, who primarily want to maximize 

profit (Freeman, 1984). According to stakeholder theory, attainment of this purpose is unachievable if the needs 

of other stakeholders are disregarded. Dissanayake et al. (2019) claim that companies bear a twofold obligation 

toward their investors or stakeholders, as well as diverse stakeholders whose actions can exert influence on or be 

influenced by the organizations’ conduct. Corporations proactively participate in and communicate on 

environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues to demonstrate to stakeholders that their demands are 

acknowledged. A potential strategy for attaining this goal involves integrating it into annual reports or creating 

separate sustainability reports (Abeysekera, 2022). Companies strive to address the issue of information 

asymmetry by properly disseminating environmental, social, and governance (ESG) information. This involves 

reporting non-financial factors like social and environmental initiatives, along with their corresponding outcomes 

(Alsahali & Malagueño, 2022). The use of ESG reporting serves as a means to actively include several stakeholder 

groups that are considered crucial for the ongoing operation of the organization. The use of stakeholder theory 

necessitates that the organizational manager swiftly attends to the external demands of the global context. 

Stakeholder theory asserts that businesses should conduct themselves in an ethical and fair manner toward the 

expectations of stakeholders, guided by their understanding of what is morally right. This research builds upon 

the theoretical framework of legitimacy theory, which also highlights the ethical behavior of businesses (Osei et 

al., 2023). Stakeholders are of paramount importance in offering assistance to organizational management 

regarding the manifestation of the firm’s ideals, as stated by Wen et al. (2023). This mindset empowers individuals 

to distinguish between ethically right and perilous. According to Zhou et al. (2022), stakeholders play a vital role 

in directing enterprises toward the preservation and improvement of quality of life. Consequently, it is imperative 

for businesses to incorporate environmental considerations into their operations and effectively communicate 

sustainability-related information. According to stakeholder theory, it is advisable for organizations to prioritize 

the cultivation of positive relationships with all stakeholders (Osei et al., 2019). Consequently, corporations may 

feel obligated to adopt and disseminate sustainability reports because of the impact exerted by stakeholders. The 

sustainability reports of the company function as comprehensive collections of data on the effects of the 



 

Solberg Horve Mishiwo, Evans Yao Vigbedor, Benjamin Coffie Alorzuke and Abraham 

Aborhey (2024) 

 

44 
American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and Economics | 

https://sadijournals.org/Journals/index.php/sijssh 

 

company’s operations on the local community and the natural environment. Companies express their efforts 

toward global goals as a strategic approach to efficiently execute their responsibilities and obtain the support and 

approval of stakeholders. 

The use of ST is commonly observed as a prominent theoretical framework in research related to ESG. According 

to Agyemang et al. (2023b), ensuring the sustained existence of a firm necessitates the organization’s capacity to 

meet the expectations of its employees. The participation of numerous stakeholders is necessary to address the 

complexity of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) concerns and generate effective and sustainable 

solutions (Freudenreich et al., 2020). Leaders often encounter the challenge of deciding which interests to 

prioritize, ignore, support, or please due to conflicting interests. The equilibrium of stakeholder interests is a 

pivotal factor for organizations. 

2.1.2 Institutional Theory 

Institutional theory offers a comprehensive framework for understanding the rationale behind a firm’s selection 

of a certain structure or reporting technique. Simoni et al. (2020) assert that businesses primarily engaged in 

activities with significant ecological impacts, like the mining sector, are under more pressure to conduct their 

operations ethically than businesses with less ecological implications. 

Institutional theory posits that entities in a particular field tend to become more similar to one another because of 

the forces they encounter. These pressures include the adoption of institutional and social norms and standards to 

establish legitimacy and maintain access to resources. The concept of isomorphism refers to a form of 

standardization that encompasses several types, including coercive (regulatory), mimetic (competitive), and 

normative (market) styles (Kılıç et al., 2021). 

The phenomenon of coercive isomorphism occurs when a corporation experiences external pressures, such as 

those exerted by shareholders or employees or by national decisions and legislation, that compel the firm to 

modify its established institutional standards (Herold, 2018). A company may adopt mimetic isomorphism if its 

executives perceive it as a strategic advantage in the market (Ḱlıç et al., 2021). An illustration of this phenomenon 

can be observed in the implementation of corporate social responsibility reporting. Organizations globally are 

progressively adopting the GRI standards for sustainable development (SD) as a manifestation of normative 

isomorphism. This phenomenon pertains to the compulsion of firms to adopt organizational practices that align 

with shared beliefs, often driven by clients or vendors who demand adherence to ecological and social standards 

(Tran & Beddewela, 2020). 

According to institutional theory, a company’s corporate strategies are greatly affected by its institutional 

environment, which includes its rules and societal values (Posadas et al., 2023). However, this concept bears a 

resemblance to the approach advocated by legitimacy theory. Simoni et al. (2020) posited that to thrive, firms 

must conform to the social norms, values, and beliefs prevalent in their respective regions. Expanding upon this 

concept, institutional theory posits that the actions, endeavors, and communications of a company might result in 

stakeholders developing specific expectations. Hence, the adoption of sustainable strategies entails adherence to 

legal regulations, societal norms, and ethical principles to bolster or safeguard a company’s standing among its 

various stakeholders (Alatawi et al., 2023). 

2.2 Empirical review and hypothesis development 

2.2.1 Stakeholder pressure and ESG reporting 

The examination of the determinants that impact sustainability reports from enterprises could derive advantages 

from the theoretical framework established by stakeholder theory. In accordance with stakeholder theory, 

managers can utilize stakeholders’ expectations, or limitations on output, as a standard for evaluating 



 

Solberg Horve Mishiwo, Evans Yao Vigbedor, Benjamin Coffie Alorzuke and Abraham 

Aborhey (2024) 

 

45 
American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and Economics | 

https://sadijournals.org/Journals/index.php/sijssh 

 

environmental performance, particularly when there is a broad agreement regarding the significance of 

environmental issues (Sarkis et al., 2010). In response to increasing issues, efforts have been made to integrate 

environmental concerns and practices into strategic, tactical, and operational measures. The legitimacy idea posits 

that enterprises should prioritize their social actions to align with community expectations. Hence, a company 

may be required to elucidate the congruence between its activities and social values, as the community or 

stakeholders may respond unfavorably, particularly in cases where there are disparities between the company’s 

values and those of society (Alatawi et al., 2023). Hence, it is imperative for firms to adjust their strategies in 

response to societal expectations to maintain their social reputation and foster a relationship founded on trust with 

stakeholders. According to Alatawi et al. (2023), firms can enhance their ability to anticipate social concerns by 

effectively communicating and sharing information regarding their sustainability challenges through publicly 

accessible reports. 

Sarkis et al. (2010) examined the application of stakeholder theory in their analysis of the adoption of sustainable 

measures within the Spanish automobile sector. Their findings indicated that stakeholders can have diverse 

impacts depending on the specific scenario being examined. Hence, a notable correlation exists between the 

environmental requirements of different stakeholders and the pressures exerted by distinct groups of stakeholders 

on sustainable practices. 

The firm’s decisions are a direct manifestation of the preferences of the dominant shareholder (Raub & Martin-

Rios, 2019). Hence, it is imperative for shareholders to exert efficient supervision over the management of the 

company to mitigate the occurrences of information concealment and foster a culture of more thorough and 

transparent reporting. Shareholder pressure on sustainability is compelling firms to consider their wider social 

and environmental effects, which is a positive development. 

Investors are increasingly recognizing the promise of sustainability as a means to foster a more just and fair 

society, while also enhancing safety and prosperity. Consequently, stakeholders are employing their voting power 

and other types of influence to exert pressure on firms to enhance their environmental, social, and governance 

(ESG) efficacy (Cadez et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2018). The findings of Chithambo et al. (2022) indicate that the 

environmental performance of manufacturing companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange (ISE) is 

considerably influenced by stakeholder pressure, encompassing environmental, consumer, employee, and 

shareholder pressures.  

Ramadhini et al. (2020) found that external stakeholders, including creditors and the media, influence social and 

environmental transparency. Furthermore, Fernandez-Feijoo et al. (2014) revealed that the presence of particular 

stakeholder groups, such as customers, clients, employees, and the environment, exerts a significant influence on 

the level of transparency in reporting. 

The aforementioned literature leads to the formulation of the hypothesis as follows:  

H1: Stakeholder pressure has a positive significant impact on ESG reporting 

2.2.2 Climatic finance and ESG reporting 

The achievement of the Paris climate objectives presents a notable and persistent challenge in terms of investment, 

requiring careful and prompt allocation of resources toward low-carbon and energy-efficient technologies. 

Additionally, it is crucial to align the financial sector with climate objectives (Boissinot et al., 2016; Jachnik et 

al., 2019).  

To meet the existing NDC obligations, it will be imperative to allocate an average of around US$130 billion per 

year toward the development of low-carbon technology and energy efficiency measures (hence referred to as 

"low-carbon") from 2016 to 2030. The potential for this quantity to increase twofold or even threefold exists if 



 

Solberg Horve Mishiwo, Evans Yao Vigbedor, Benjamin Coffie Alorzuke and Abraham 

Aborhey (2024) 

 

46 
American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and Economics | 

https://sadijournals.org/Journals/index.php/sijssh 

 

the selected trajectories agree with the overarching goal of the Paris Agreement, which aims to restrict global 

warming to a level below 2°C (McCollum et al., 2018). It is improbable that the mobilization of these investments 

will be accomplished exclusively through state finances, thereby requiring the significant participation of private 

finance (UNFCCC, 2018).The substantial assets under management of institutional investors, amounting to $84 

trillion in OECD countries in 2017 (OECD, 2018), as well as their long-term liabilities, which may correspond to 

the temporal dimensions of climate change, have garnered commendation from scholars such as Gründl et al. 

(2016), Nelson and Pierpont (2013), Kaminker and Stewart (2012), and Della et al. (2011).  

According to the 2016 G20 report, the current representation of low-carbon assets in the portfolios of global 

institutional investors stands at less than 1%. Furthermore, it is worth noting that in 2016, these assets accounted 

for a mere 0.2% of the overall climate finance flows, as reported by Buchner et al. (2017) and Oliver et al. (2018). 

Considering Carney’s address, the Financial Stability Board argued that a notable aspect of the problem can be 

attributed to the lack of transparency surrounding asset holdings, drawing a comparison to the believed 

circumstances that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis. As a result, the board of directors formed the Task 

Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosure (TCFD), which seeks to incorporate industry perspectives and 

recommendations. The main goal of industry and policy initiatives in the domains of climate finance and 

sustainability reporting is to effectively execute the suggestions put forth by the TCFD on the establishment of 

transparency throughout the financial system. The proposition of this objective is substantiated by the chronology 

put forth by Chenet (2019b) and recent scholarly works examining the essence and attributes of financial risks 

associated with climate change, including the UNFCCC (2018), Chenet et al. (2017), and Gros et al. (2016). There 

is a growing recognition among investors of the potential of sustainability in promoting a more equitable and 

morally upright society, as well as in bolstering safety and prosperity. According to Chenet (2019b), the effective 

utilization of climate finance can foster a conducive atmosphere for firms to enhance their environmental, social, 

and governance (ESG) reporting. Therefore, the current study developed the following hypothesis: 

H2: Climate finance has a positive significant impact on ESG reporting 

2.2.3 Green technological innovation and ESG reporting 

Institutional theory examines the impact of external factors on green technology. We can use analytical logic to 

view green innovation as a response to customer expectations and regulatory pressure. According to Berrone et 

al. (2013), the objective is to ensure that firms conform to societal norms, regulatory obligations, and public 

perception. 

In accordance with stakeholder theory, it is imperative for businesses to prioritize addressing the needs and 

anticipations of all stakeholders rather than solely catering to the interests of shareholders who possess financial 

interests (Freeman, 1984). Considering this, the company has integrated green innovation strategies into its policy. 

Shareholder pressure on sustainability refers to the increasing trend among shareholders, particularly institutional 

shareholders, to demand that corporations reveal their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance 

and prioritize efforts promoting green technical advancements. According to Klç et al. (2021), shareholders are 

employing their voting power and other types of influence to exert pressure on enterprises, urging them to enhance 

their green technological innovation. Consequently, the influence of shareholders on the adoption of green 

technology innovation is compelling companies to consider their wider social and environmental consequences, 

which is a positive development. 

Esposito De Falco et al. (2021) conducted an empirical investigation and found that contractual stakeholders 

significantly influence environmental innovation. Jayaraman et al. (2023) found that stakeholders, including 

employees, suppliers, government regulations, and customers, have a significant influence on an organization’s 



 

Solberg Horve Mishiwo, Evans Yao Vigbedor, Benjamin Coffie Alorzuke and Abraham 

Aborhey (2024) 

 

47 
American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and Economics | 

https://sadijournals.org/Journals/index.php/sijssh 

 

sustainability performance, especially in relation to green technological innovation initiatives. This suggests that 

stakeholders play a crucial role in implementing green innovation and believe that doing so can help reduce 

environmental impact. Further investigation has corroborated the notion that stakeholders have a significant 

impact on enterprises’ adoption of green innovation (Thomas et al., 2022). Thus, the study described the following 

hypothesis: 

H3: Green technological innovation has a positive significant impact on ESG reporting 

3. Methodology 

The study used panel data obtained from the World Bank, namely from 20 publicly traded companies listed on 

the Ghana stock exchange market. The data covered the time frame from 2014 to 2023 and were collected through 

the Ghana-CClimatology | Climate Change Knowledge Portal (worldbank.org). Consequently, the study yielded 

a sample size of 200. The firms were chosen on the basis of their stock market performance. The selected time 

frame was deliberately chosen depending on the accessibility of the data. The analysis of this study employed 

panel data methods, specifically the summary statistics, panel unit root test, panel VAR, and Hausman test. The 

Hausman test is a robust test that was used to assess endogeneity among the regressors and determine whether to 

employ a fixed-effects model or a random-effects model for the analysis. 

Panel Unit Root Test 

It is important to highlight that the estimator may not be adequate in cases where the variables inside a panel 

exhibit a unit root, which might result in inaccurate conclusions. In this study, the panel unit tests employed were 

Breitung & Das (2005) and Im-Pesaran-Shin (2003). These tests were used to test the null hypothesis for all panels 

that exhibited a unit root. The formulation of the hypothesis for performing the unit test can be expressed as 

follows: 

H0: Panels contain unit roots vs. Ha: Panels are stationary. The Panel unit root test can be presented mathematically 

as follows: 

ΔYi,t = θ + 𝛾αi, t-1 + ∑βiΔYi,t-1 + 𝜔i,t ………………………………(1) 

Where, 𝜃 is a constant, 𝛾 is the coefficient of the process root, 𝛽𝑖 coefficient in time tendency, 𝑛 is the lag order 

and 𝜔i, t is the disturbance (error) term. 

Panel VAR 

The proposed panel VAR model helps to examine the short-run connection between the variables of interest and 

it is given by 

𝑌𝑖𝑡 = 𝜇𝑖 + 𝐵(𝐿)𝑌𝑖𝑡 + 𝛼𝑖 + 𝛿𝑡 + 휀𝑖𝑡                                                       (2)                                               

Where 𝑌𝑖𝑡 represents the vector of the endogenous stationary series Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) 

reporting, Stakeholder Pressure (Stakeholder), Climate Finance (Climate), and Green Innovation (Green) while 

𝜇𝑖 represents the matrix of firm-specific fixed effects. The subscripts i and t refer to firm and time, respectively. 

𝐵(𝐿) denotes the matrix polynomial in the lag operator with 𝐵(𝐿) = 𝐵1𝐿1 + 𝐵2𝐿2 + ⋯ + 𝐵𝑝𝐿𝑝, 𝛼𝑖 indicates the 

vector that determines the specific effects of the firm found in this regression, 𝛿𝑡 represents the dummy variables 

for the firm’s specific time and 휀𝑖𝑡 denotes the residual vector. 

The matrix form of the proposed VAR in equation 2 treated as endogenous can be expressed as follows: 

∆(𝐸𝑆𝐺𝑖𝑡) = 𝜇1𝑖 + ∑ 𝛼1𝑗

𝑝

𝑗=1
∆(𝐸𝑆𝐺𝑖𝑡−𝑗) + ∑ 𝑏1𝑗

𝑝

𝑗=1
∆(𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑡−𝑗) + ∑ 𝑐1𝑗

𝑝

𝑗=1
∆(𝐶𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑖𝑡−𝑗)

+ ∑ 𝑑1𝑗

𝑝

𝑗=1
∆(𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑡−𝑗) + 𝛼1𝑖 + 𝛿1𝑡 + 휀1𝑖𝑡                                                          (3) 



 

Solberg Horve Mishiwo, Evans Yao Vigbedor, Benjamin Coffie Alorzuke and Abraham 

Aborhey (2024) 

 

48 
American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and Economics | 

https://sadijournals.org/Journals/index.php/sijssh 

 

∆(𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑡)

= 𝜇2𝑖 + ∑ 𝛼2𝑗

𝑝

𝑗=1
∆(𝐸𝑆𝐺𝑖𝑡−𝑗) + ∑ 𝑏2𝑗

𝑝

𝑗=1
∆(𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑡−𝑗) + ∑ 𝑐2𝑗

𝑝

𝑗=1
∆(𝐶𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑖𝑡−𝑗)

+ ∑ 𝑑2𝑗

𝑝

𝑗=1
∆(𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑡−𝑗) + 𝛼2𝑖 + 𝛿2𝑡 + 휀2𝑖𝑡                                                          (4) 

∆(𝐶𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑖𝑡) = 𝜇3𝑖 + ∑ 𝛼3𝑗

𝑝

𝑗=1
∆(𝐸𝑆𝐺𝑖𝑡−𝑗) + ∑ 𝑏3𝑗

𝑝

𝑗=1
∆(𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑡−𝑗) + ∑ 𝑐3𝑗

𝑝

𝑗=1
∆(𝐶𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑖𝑡−𝑗)

+ ∑ 𝑑3𝑗

𝑝

𝑗=1
∆(𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑡−𝑗) + 𝛼3𝑖 + 𝛿3𝑡 + 휀3𝑖𝑡                                                          (5) 

∆(𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑡) = 𝜇4𝑖 + ∑ 𝛼4𝑗

𝑝

𝑗=1
∆(𝐸𝑆𝐺𝑖𝑡−𝑗) + ∑ 𝑏4𝑗

𝑝

𝑗=1
∆(𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑡−𝑗) + ∑ 𝑐4𝑗

𝑝

𝑗=1
∆(𝐶𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑖𝑡−𝑗)

+ ∑ 𝑑4𝑗

𝑝

𝑗=1
∆(𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑡−𝑗) + 𝛼4𝑖 + 𝛿4𝑡 + 휀4𝑖𝑡                                                          (6) 

Hausman Test 

The Hausman Test, alternatively referred to as the Hausman specification test, is employed to detect endogenous 

regressors within a regression model. These regressors were identified as predictor variables that correlated with 

the error term. Endogenous variables are influenced by other variables present in the system to which they belong. 

The applicability of ordinary least squares estimators is limited in models with endogenous regressors because of 

their assumption of uncorrelated error terms and predictor variables. Instrumental variable estimators can be a 

valuable option in this situation. It is imperative to discover the endogeneity of the predictor variables prior to 

choosing the most suitable regression approach. To determine the more appropriate estimator for a certain 

regression model, it is necessary to evaluate the statistical significance of the difference between two estimators 

using the Hausman test (Zulfikar and STp, 2018).  

This diagnostic method, known as the Hausman test, is frequently employed to detect potential problems in model 

definition. In panel data analysis, the Hausman test is employed to determine the appropriate model choice 

between fixed effects (FE) and random effects (RE) models. According to Adebanjo and Morufu (2022), the 

alternative hypothesis posits that the preferred model incorporates fixed effects, in contrast to the null hypothesis, 

which posits the presence of random effects. The primary objective of the tests was to determine the correlation 

between the predictors included in the model and the particular mistakes observed. It is postulated by the null 

hypothesis that there exists no correlation between the predictor variables and the error term, suggesting that the 

model remains unaffected by endogeneity. 

The Hausman statistic can be computed as follows: 

𝐻 = (�̂�𝑅𝐸 − �̂�𝐹𝐸)
′
[𝑉𝑎𝑟(�̂�𝑅𝐸) − 𝑉𝑎𝑟(�̂�𝐹𝐸)]

−1
(�̂�𝑅𝐸 − �̂�𝐹𝐸)                                                      (7) 

The hypothesis is therefore stated as follows: 

H0: Select RE (p> 0.05) 

H1: Select FE (p <0.05) 

In panel data analysis, the generalized model involves assessing the relationship between variables while 

considering individual intercepts. This equation clarifies the complex connections between variables within and 

between companies, enabling a more comprehensive understanding of the elements that influence ESG reporting. 

The equation may be represented in the following manner: 

𝑦𝑖𝑡 = 𝛼𝑖 + 𝛽′𝑋𝑖𝑡 + 휀𝑖𝑡  ;     𝑖 = 1,2, … , 𝑁 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡 = 1,2, … , 𝑇.                                                           (8) 

Where N = number of individuals or cross-section and T = the number of periods. 



 

Solberg Horve Mishiwo, Evans Yao Vigbedor, Benjamin Coffie Alorzuke and Abraham 

Aborhey (2024) 

 

49 
American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and Economics | 

https://sadijournals.org/Journals/index.php/sijssh 

 

According to Chenet (2019b) and Chithambo et al. (2022), the panel model can take the following form: 

 𝐸𝑆𝐺 𝑖𝑡  =  𝛼 +  𝛽1(𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑒𝑟)𝑖𝑡  + 𝛽2(𝐶𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒)𝑖𝑡  + 𝛽3(𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛)𝑖𝑡  +

휀𝑖𝑡                                                                                                                                  (9) 

The dependent variable in this study is the ESG reporting of traded firms in Ghana. The main independent 

variables are stakeholder pressure and climate finance, whereas the control variable is green technological 

innovation. The random error term, denoted as εit, represents firms, while the ith unit represents time in years, 

denoted as t. 

According to Chu et al. (2019), green technological innovation (GTI) involves the development and application 

of novel technologies and processes aimed at enhancing environmental sustainability. These technologies 

conserve resources, mitigate pollution, and foster a more sustainable and ecologically conscious society. The 

measurement is expressed as a percentage. Similarly, ESG reporting, stakeholder pressure, and climate finance 

are quantified as percentages. 

4. Empirical results and discussion 

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics 

 N Mean Std. Deviation 

Climate Finance 200 33.88 19.335 

Stakeholder Pressure 200 63.45 16.768 

Green Innovation 200 23.07 10.331 

ESG 200 39.89 14.724 

Valid N (listwise) 200   

Source: Author’s computation using the EViews software 

According to the data presented in Table 1, the selected firms exhibited an average climate finance of 

approximately 34% during the review period, with a variability of approximately 19%. Additionally, the average 

stakeholder pressure was found to be approximately 63%, with a variability of approximately 17%. Furthermore, 

the average green technological innovation was observed to be around 23%, with a variability of approximately 

10%. Finally, the average ESG reporting was estimated to be around 40%, with a variability of approximately 

15%. 

Table 2: Panel Unit root test 

First difference (Breitung) Im-Pesaran-Shin 

Differenced Variables Test statistic P-value Test 

statistic 

P-value No. of panels 

ESG -4.42 0.0010 -4.28 0.0000 20 

Stakeholder pressure -5.99 0.0008 -7.06 0.0000 20 

Climate Finance -6.30 0.0000 -8.51 0.0000 20 

Green Innovation -2.29 0.0041 -1.99 0.0235 20 

Source: Author’s computation using the EViews software 

Table 2 presents the results of the panel unit root using the Breitung and Im-Pesaran-Shin approaches, indicating 

that the panel data became stationary after the second difference at the 5% significance level, suggesting that the 

unit root that might lead to an erroneous conclusion has been eliminated and further panel data analysis can be 

conducted. 

 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-019-02542-2#ref-CR22
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311975.2024.2303790


 

Solberg Horve Mishiwo, Evans Yao Vigbedor, Benjamin Coffie Alorzuke and Abraham 

Aborhey (2024) 

 

50 
American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and Economics | 

https://sadijournals.org/Journals/index.php/sijssh 

 

Table 3: Panel VAR 

     
      Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.   

     
     ESG C (1) 0.714209 0.088707 8.051289 0.0000 

                C (2) -0.075036 0.046827 -1.602395 0.1095 

                C (3) -0.012495 0.069924 -0.178697 0.8582 

                C (4) 0.043396 0.073535 0.590142 0.5553 

                C (5) 16.65817 4.482543 3.716232 0.0002 

Stakeholder C (6) 0.073976 0.138386 0.534565 0.5931 

                    C (7) 0.251267 0.073052 3.439570 0.0006 

                 C (8) -0.220099 0.109084 -2.017708 0.0440 

                 C (9) -0.312700 0.114717 -2.725846 0.0066 

                   C (10) 59.26484 6.992878 8.475030 0.0000 

Climate        C (11) -0.031438 0.112999 -0.278212 0.7809 

                   C (12) -0.101958 0.059650 -1.709270 0.0878 

                   C (13) 0.766171 0.089072 8.601684 0.0000 

                   C (14) 0.103759 0.093672 1.107687 0.2684 

                   C (15) 14.86281 5.710019 2.602936 0.0094 

Green C (16) -0.037657 0.078374 -0.480474 0.6310 

                  C (17) -0.047861 0.041373 -1.156841 0.2477 

                  C (18) -0.015481 0.061779 -0.250586 0.8022 

                  C (19) 0.546963 0.064969 8.418797 0.0000 

                  C (20) 15.84158 3.960385 4.000009 0.0001 

     
     
Source: Author’s computation using the EViews software 

Table 3 shows the result of the estimated panel vector autoregressive (VAR) model, and the outcome reveals that 

five lags were estimated for each of the five endogenous variables in the model, with ESG reporting having the 

first and fifth lags statistically significant at the 1% level, stakeholder pressure having the second, third, fourth, 

and fifth lags statistically significant at the 1% and 5% significant levels, respectively, climate finance having the 

third and fifth lags statistically significant at the 1% level, and green technological innovation having the fourth 

and fifth lags statistically significant at the 1% level, suggesting that ESG reporting has a short-run relationship 

with climate finance, stakeholder pressure, and green technological innovation.  co-integration does not exist 

among the panel data; hence, the Panel VAR is well suited for the dataset. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

Solberg Horve Mishiwo, Evans Yao Vigbedor, Benjamin Coffie Alorzuke and Abraham 

Aborhey (2024) 

 

51 
American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and Economics | 

https://sadijournals.org/Journals/index.php/sijssh 

 

Table 4: Correlated Random Effects: Hausman Test 

     
     Test Summary Chi-Sq. Statistic Chi-Sq. d. f. Prob.  

     
     Cross-section random 0.379695 3 0.9444 

     
          

Cross-sectional random effect test comparisons: 

     

Variable Fixed   Random  Var(Diff.)  Prob.  

     
     STAKEHOLDER PRESSURE 0.052952 0.053500 0.000023 0.9098 

CLIMATE FINANCE 0.648026 0.646618 0.000019 0.7437 

GREEN INNOVATION 0.031045 0.026269 0.000066 0.5551 

     
     
Source: Author’s computation using the EViews software 

Table 4 shows that the P-value of the Hausman test exceeds the 0.05 significance level, indicating that the panel 

random-effects model is appropriate for the analysis of panel data. In addition, the Hausman test also indicates 

that the P-values of all the predictor variables, such as stakeholder pressure, climate finance, and green 

technological innovation, exceed the 0.05 significance level, implying that the model does not suffer from the 

problem of endogeneity. Hence, panel random regression estimators will be adopted for the analysis of this work 

on the basis of the specification of the Hausman test, which aligns with Adebanjo et al. (2022). 

Table 5: Method: Panel EGLS (Cross-section random effects) 

     
     Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.   

     
     C 13.98612 3.079837 4.541187 0.0000 

CLIMATE FINANCE 0.646618 0.026129 24.74736 0.0000 

STAKEHOLDER PRESSURE 0.053500 0.030300 1.765678 0.0490 

GREEN INNOVATION 0.026269 0.047978 0.547524 0.5846 

     
      Effects Specification   

   S.D.   Rho   

     
     Cross-section random 6.675625 0.5565 

Idiosyncratic random 5.959484 0.4435 

     
      Weighted Statistics   

     
     R-squared 0.765377   

Adjusted R-squared 0.761786   

S.E. of regression 5.919514   

F-statistic 213.1281   

Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000    

     



 

Solberg Horve Mishiwo, Evans Yao Vigbedor, Benjamin Coffie Alorzuke and Abraham 

Aborhey (2024) 

 

52 
American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and Economics | 

https://sadijournals.org/Journals/index.php/sijssh 

 

     Source: Author’s computation using the EViews software 

According to Table 5, the fitted panel random-effect regression model (P<0.01) indicates that the model is 

statistically significant at the 1% level. This suggests that, while considering green technological innovation, there 

is a significant relationship between stakeholder pressure, climate finance, and ESG reporting. Additionally, the 

random-effect regression model demonstrates that the coefficient estimates of climate finance and stakeholder 

pressure have a significant positive impact on ESG reporting (P<0.05). This suggests that higher levels of 

stakeholder pressure and climate finance in traded firms lead to greater ESG reporting, thereby supporting the 

first and second hypotheses (H1 and H2). This agrees with the findings of Ramadhini et al. (2020), who showed 

that external stakeholders, such as creditors and the media, have an impact on social and environmental 

transparency, as well as the work of Chenet (2019b), which demonstrates that the efficient use of climate finance 

can foster an atmosphere conducive for firms to enhance their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) 

reporting. Moreover, it corroborated the research of Fernandez-Feijoo et al. (2014), which demonstrated that the 

existence of specific stakeholder groups, such as clients, consumers, workers, and the environment, has a major 

impact on the degree of reporting transparency. 

Figure 1 shows the pattern of the coefficient estimates of the fitted random-effects model. 

 
Figure 1: Coefficient plot 

5. Conclusion and policy implications 

It is crucial to underscore the significance of climate financing in fostering a sustainable business environment in 

developing economies such as Ghana and other African nations. The primary aim of this research is to examine 

the influence of stakeholder pressure and climate finance on the practice of environmental, social, and governance 

(ESG) reporting within publicly traded companies in Ghana. The findings from the Panel VAR analysis indicate 

a short-term relationship between ESG reporting and climate finance, stakeholder pressure, and green technical 

innovation. The Hausman test revealed that the random-effects model indicates a positive and significant 

influence of climate finance and stakeholder pressure on ESG reporting. This suggests that a high level of climate 

finance and stakeholder pressure improves ESG reporting among traded firms in Ghana. Therefore, it is 



 

Solberg Horve Mishiwo, Evans Yao Vigbedor, Benjamin Coffie Alorzuke and Abraham 

Aborhey (2024) 

 

53 
American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and Economics | 

https://sadijournals.org/Journals/index.php/sijssh 

 

imperative to implement sustainable measures to promote climate finance in poor countries such as Ghana, with 

the aim of improving environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting and overall company performance. 

References 

Abeysekera, I. (2022). A framework for sustainability reporting. Sustainability Accounting, Management and 

Policy Journal, 13(6), 1–22.  

Adebanjo, S.A., & Morufu, A. O. (2022). Transparency and Global Initiatives in the Face of Natural Resource 

Depletion in Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Environmental Science and Economics, 1(2):13-24. 

Agyemang, A., Yusheng, K., Kongkuah, M., Musah, A., & Musah, M. (2023a). Assessing the impact of 

environmental accounting disclosure on corporate performance in China. Environmental Engineering and 

Management Journal, 22(2), 389–397. 

Agyemang, A. O., Yusheng, K., Twum, A. K., Edziah, B. K., & Ayamba, E. C. (2023b). Environmental 

accounting and performance: Empirical evidence from China. Environment, Development and 

Sustainability, 1–26.c 

Alatawi, I. A., Ntim, C. G., Zras, A., & Elmagrhi, M. H. (2023). CSR, financial and non-financial performance 

in the tourism sector: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. International Review of 

Financial Analysis, 89, 102734.  

Alsahali, K. F., & Malagueño, R. (2022). An empirical study of sustainability reporting assurance: current trends 

and new insights. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 18(5), 617–642. 

Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A., Gelabert, L., & Gomez‐Mejia, L. R. (2013). Necessity as the mother of ‘green’inventions: 

Institutional pressures and environmental innovations. Strategic Management Journal, 34(8), 891–909.  

Boissinot, J., Huber, D., & Lame, G. (2016). Finance and climate: the transition to a low carbon and climate 

resilient economy from a financial sector perspective. OECD working paper. OECD Publishing, Paris. 

Buchner, B.K., Oliver, P., Wang, X., Carswell, C., Meattle, C., & Mazza, F. (2017). Global landscape of climate 

finance 2017, Climate Policy Initiative. 

Cadez, S., Czerny, A., & Letmathe, P. (2019). Stakeholder pressures and corporate climate change mitigation 

strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(1), 1–14. 

Chithambo, L., Tauringana, V., Tingbani, I., & Achiro, L. (2022). Stakeholder pressure and greenhouses gas 

voluntary disclosures. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(1), 159–172. 

Chenet, H., Hilke, A., & Duan, W. (2017). Finance sector alignment with international climate goals – reviewing 

options and obstacles. 2° Investing Initiative. Green-Win European H2020 Project. 

Chenet, H. (2019b). Climate change and financial risk. In “risk management and modeling”, springer (risk, 

systems and decisions series). 

https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-08-2021-0316
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-08-2021-0316
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.30638/eemj.2023.030
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.30638/eemj.2023.030
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2023.102734
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1108/JAOC-05-2020-0060
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1108/JAOC-05-2020-0060
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1002/smj.2041
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1002/smj.2041
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1002/bse.2070
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1002/bse.2070
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101210
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101210


 

Solberg Horve Mishiwo, Evans Yao Vigbedor, Benjamin Coffie Alorzuke and Abraham 

Aborhey (2024) 

 

54 
American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and Economics | 

https://sadijournals.org/Journals/index.php/sijssh 

 

Chu, Z., Wang, L., & Lai, F. (2019). Customer pressure and green innovations at third party logistics providers 

in China: The moderation effect of organizational culture. The International Journal of Logistics 

Management, 30(1), 57–75. 

CISL (2018). Sailing from different harbours: G20 approaches to implementing the recommendations of the task 

force on climate-related financial disclosures. CISL, Cambridge, UK. 

CPI (2022c). Climate Finance Needs of African Countries. Climate Policy Initiative (CPI). Retrieved from: 

https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Climate-Finance-Need s-of-

African-Countries-1.pdf 

Della, C.R., Stewart, F., & Yermo, J. (2011). Promoting longer-term investment by institutional investors: 

selected issues and policies. OECD Journal: Financial Market Trends, Vol. 2011/1 

Dissanayake, D., Tilt, C., & Qian, W. (2019). Factors influencing sustainability reporting by Sri Lankan 

companies. Pacific Accounting Review, 31(1), 84–109. 

Esposito De Falco, S., Scandurra, G., & Thomas, A. (2021). How stakeholders affect the pursuit of the 

Environmental, Social, and Governance. Evidence from innovative small and medium 

enterprises. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(5), 1528–1539. 

Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S., & Ruiz, S. (2014). Effect of stakeholders’ pressure on transparency of 

sustainability reports within the GRI framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(1), 53–63. 

Freudenreich, B., Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Schaltegger, S. (2020). A stakeholder theory perspective on business 

models: Value creation for sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 166(1), 3–18. 

G20 (2016). G20 Green finance synthesis report. G20 Green Finance Study Group, 15 July 2016. 

Higgins, C., Tang, S., & Stubbs, W. (2020). On managing hypocrisy: The transparency of sustainability 

reports. Journal of Business Research, 114, 395–407. 

Jachnik, R., Mirabile, M., & Dobrinevski, A. (2019). Tracking finance flows towards assessing their consistency 

with climate objectives: proposed scope, knowns and unknowns. OECD environment working papers, no. 

146OECD publishing, Paris. 

Jayaraman, K., Jayashree, S., & Dorasamy, M. (2023). The effects of green innovations in organizations: 

Influence of stakeholders. Sustainability, 15(2), 1133. 

Kaminker, C., & Stewart, F. (2012). The role of institutional investors in financing clean energy. OECD Working 

Papers on Finance, Insurance and Private Pensions, 23. 

Kılıç, M., Uyar, A., Kuzey, C., & Karaman, A. S. (2021). Does institutional theory explain integrated reporting 

adoption of Fortune 500 companies? Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 22(1), 114–137. 

https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-11-2017-0294
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-11-2017-0294
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1108/PAR-10-2017-0085
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1108/PAR-10-2017-0085
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1002/csr.2183
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1002/csr.2183
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1748-5
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1748-5
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04112-z
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04112-z
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.08.041
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.3390/su15021133
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.3390/su15021133
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-04-2020-0068
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-04-2020-0068


 

Solberg Horve Mishiwo, Evans Yao Vigbedor, Benjamin Coffie Alorzuke and Abraham 

Aborhey (2024) 

 

55 
American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and Economics | 

https://sadijournals.org/Journals/index.php/sijssh 

 

Krasodomska, J., & Zarzycka, E. (2021). Key performance indicators disclosure in the context of the EU directive: 

When does stakeholder pressure matter? Meditari Accountancy Research, 29(7), 1–30. 

Lee, J. W., Kim, Y. M., & Kim, Y. E. (2018). Antecedents of adopting corporate environmental responsibility 

and green practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(2), 397–409. 

Lulu, C. L. (2021). Stakeholder pressure and the quality of sustainability report: Evidence from Indonesia. Journal 

of Accounting, Entrepreneurship and Financial Technology (Jaef), 2(1), 53–72. 

Maama, H., & Mkhize, M. (2020). Integrated reporting practice in a developing country—Ghana: Legitimacy or 

stakeholder oriented? International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 17(4), 230–244. 

Menassa, E., & Dagher, N. (2020). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosures of UAE national 

banks: A multi-perspective approach. Social Responsibility Journal, 16(5), 631–654.  

Mensah, E., Frimpong, K., & Maama, H. (2017). Environmental reporting practices by listed manufacturing 

firms: The perspective of an emerging economy. Asian Journal of Economics, Business and 

Accounting, 2(3), 1–12. 

McCollum, DL et al. (2018). Energy investment needs for fulfilling the Paris agreement and achieving the 

sustainable development goals. Nat Energy 3:589–599. 

Osei, A., Osei Agyemang, A., Amoah, J., & Sulemana, I. (2023). Empirical study on the impact of working capital 

management on going concern of manufacturing firms in Ghana. Cogent Business & Management, 10(2), 

2218177. 

Gros, D., D. Schoenmaker, D., Matikainen, S., Langfield, S., Lane, P., Pagano, M., & Suarez, J. (2016). Too late, 

too sudden: transition to a low-carbon economy and systemic risk. European Systemic Risk Board - ESRB 

Advisory Scientific Committee. 

Gründl, H., Gal, J., & Dong, M. (2016). The evolution of insurer portfolio investment strategies for long-term 

investing. OECD Journal: Financial Market Trends, 2016 (1). 

Nelson D., & Pierpont, B. (2013). The challenge of institutional investment in renewable energy. Climate Policy 

Initiative report. 

Oliver P., Clark, A., Meattle, C., & Buchner, B. (2018). Global climate finance: an updated view 2018, Climate 

Policy Initiative. 

Osei, A. A., Yusheng, K., Caesar, E. A., Kissiwaa, A. T., & Shaibu, A. (2019). Impact of board characteristics on 

corporate social responsibility disclosure in Ghana. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied 

Research, 46(1), 104–116. 

https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-05-2020-0876
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-05-2020-0876
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3024-y
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3024-y
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.37715/jaef.v2i1.1864
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.37715/jaef.v2i1.1864
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1057/s41310-020-00092-z
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1057/s41310-020-00092-z
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-09-2017-0191
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-09-2017-0191
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.9734/AJEBA/2017/32817
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.9734/AJEBA/2017/32817
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2218177
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2218177


 

Solberg Horve Mishiwo, Evans Yao Vigbedor, Benjamin Coffie Alorzuke and Abraham 

Aborhey (2024) 

 

56 
American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and Economics | 

https://sadijournals.org/Journals/index.php/sijssh 

 

Posadas, S. C., Ruiz-Blanco, S., Fernandez-Feijoo, B., & Tarquinio, L. (2023). Institutional isomorphism under 

the test of non-financial reporting directive. Evidence from Italy and Spain. Meditari Accountancy 

Research, 31(7), 26–48.  

Ramadhini, A., Adhariani, D., & Djakman, C. D. (2020). The effects of external stakeholder pressure on CSR 

disclosure: Evidence from Indonesia. DLSU Business and Economics Review, 29(2), 29–39. 

Raub, S. P., & Martin-Rios, C. (2019). “Think sustainable, act local”–A stakeholder-filter-model for translating 

SDGs into sustainability initiatives with local impact. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality 

Management, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print), 2428–2447. 

Rudyanto, A., & Veronica Siregar, S. (2018). The effect of stakeholder pressure and corporate governance on the 

sustainability report quality. International Journal of Ethics and Systems, 34(2), 233–249. 

Sarkis, J., Gonzalez-Torre, P., & Adenso-Diaz, B. (2010). Stakeholder pressure and the adoption of environmental 

practices: The mediating effect of training. Journal of Operations Management, 28(2), 163–176. 

Simoni, L., Bini, L., & Bellucci, M. (2020). Effects of social, environmental, and institutional factors on 

sustainability report assurance: Evidence from European countries. Meditari Accountancy 

Research, 28(6), 1059–1087. 

Thomas, A., Scandurra, G., & Carfora, A. (2022). Adoption of green innovations by SMEs: An investigation 

about the influence of stakeholders. European Journal of Innovation Management, 25(6), 44–63.  

Tran, M., & Beddewela, E. (2020). Does context matter for sustainability disclosure? Institutional factors in 

Southeast Asia. Business Ethics: A European Review, 29(2), 282–302. 

UNFCCC. (2018). 2018 biennial assessment and overview of climate finance flows. UNFCCC Standing 

Committee on Finance, Bonn. 

UNFCCC (2021). Updated Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement (2020 - 2030) – 

Ghana. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Retrieved from: 

https://mesti.gov.gh/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Ghanas-Updated-Nationally-DeterminedContribution-

to-the-UNFCCC_2021.pdf 

UNFCCC (2023). The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: Introduction to climate 

finance. Available online: Introduction to Climate Finance | UNFCCC 

Wen, K., Agyemang, A., Alessa, N., Sulemana, I., & Osei, A. (2023). The moderating role of ownership 

concentration on financing decisions and firm’s sustainability: Evidence from 

China. Sustainability, 15(18), 13385. 

Wiredu, I., Osei Agyemang, A., & Agbadzidah, S. Y. (2023). Does green accounting influences ecological 

sustainability? Evidence from a developing economy. Cogent Business & Management, 10(2), 2240559. 

https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-02-2022-1606
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-02-2022-1606
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-06-2018-0453
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-06-2018-0453
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-05-2017-0071
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-05-2017-0071
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2009.10.001
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2009.10.001
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-03-2019-0462
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-03-2019-0462
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-07-2020-0292
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-07-2020-0292
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1111/beer.12265
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1111/beer.12265
https://unfccc.int/topics/introduction-to-climate-finance
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.3390/su151813385
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.3390/su151813385
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2240559
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2240559


 

Solberg Horve Mishiwo, Evans Yao Vigbedor, Benjamin Coffie Alorzuke and Abraham 

Aborhey (2024) 

 

57 
American Interdisciplinary Journal of Business and Economics | 

https://sadijournals.org/Journals/index.php/sijssh 

 

World Bank (2020). Joint World Bank-IMF Debt Sustainability Analysis. World Bank and International 

Monetary Fund. Retrieved from: 

https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/707381592860938004/pdf/Ghana-Joint-Wor ld-Bank-

IMF-Debt-Sustainability-Analysis.pd 

World Bank (2022). Country and Climate Development Report– Ghana. World Bank Group. Retrieved from: 

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/9c9764c1-076d-5dcc-833 9-

6e4f0de2b610/content 

Zhou, Y., Agyemang, A. O., Adam, I. O., & Twum, A. K. (2022). Assessing the impact of technological 

innovation on environmental and financial performance of Chinese textile manufacturing 

companies. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, 22(4), 369–393.  

Zulfikar, R., & STp, M. M. (2018). Estimation model and selection method of panel data regression: an overview 

of common effect, fixed effect, and random effect model. JEMA: Journal Ilmiah Bidang Akuntansi, 1-10. 

 

https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1504/IJTPM.2022.126152
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1504/IJTPM.2022.126152

