




































AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES, ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES 6(1) (2024), 13-25 

 

13 

 

 

    Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences 
                                                             AIJHASS VOL 6 NO 1 (2024) P-ISSN 2643-0061  E-ISSN 2643-010X 

                                                                                                                        Available online at www.acseusa.org      

                                                                                                                                Journal homepage: https://www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijhass 

                                                                                                                                        Published by American Center of Science and Education, USA 

CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOUNTABILITY (CEA) 

ASSESSMENT OF THE CORPORATE ORGANIZATIONS OF 

BANGLADESH                                                   
 

 Steve Oscar D Rozario (a)1      

 

(a) Assistant Professor, Department of Business Administration, Premier University, Chittagong, Bangladesh; E-mail: steve.rozario@puc.ac.bd 

 

 
A R T I C L E I N F O 

 
 

Article History: 
 

Received: 21st September 2024 

Reviewed & Revised: 21st September 

to 24th December 2024 

Accepted: 25th December 2024 

Published: 30th December 2024 

 
Keywords: 

 

Corporate Organization, Natural 

Environment, Environmental 

Management, Environmental 

Protection, Social Responsibility And 

Environmental Awareness 

 
 

JEL Classification Codes:  

 

Q560, P28 

       

       

      Peer-Review Model:  
 

      External peer review was done through  

      double-blind method. 
 

 
  

 
A B S T R A C T     
 
Due to unplanned industrialization and unsustainable commercial activities, Bangladesh is facing 

serious environmental problems. The research examines if there is any effect of different attributes and 

sub-attributes in various corporate organizations in Bangladesh. This study employs survey data from 

practitioners and specialists from the Department of Environment, the judiciary department, NGOs, 

environmental scientists, cost and management accountants, lawyers, industrialists, members of the 

chamber house (association of industrialists), social and political leaders, and academicians. Through 

the participatory process, 24 sub-attribute cost centers under six attributes cost centers were identified 

for CEA assessment. The weight of each sub-attribute and attribute was determined through a pair-wise 

comparison matrix. In this study, the weights of 24 sub-attributes have resulted in the CEA assessment 

scale and indicate their effectiveness in measuring the environmental accountability of different 

corporate organizations. This study uses a multi-criteria decision-making technique to assess 

Bangladesh's corporate environmental accountability (CEA). Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) was 

used. The results reveal that given the overall weights of all sub-attributes, it is pretty apparent that from 

the results, the Image/Relationship attributes are the most noteworthy, followed by Regulatory and 

Contingent. The authors suggest that there should be a unified framework for assessing corporate 

environmental accountability, and this work is an ongoing attempt to develop such a unified framework 

for corporate environmental accountability CEA) assessment. The findings of this study suggest that the 

important considerations for each attribute cost center in different corporate organizations are 

identified. 

 
 

© 2024 by the authors. Licensee ACSE, USA. This article is an open access article distributed under 
the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 

                                                                                   

 

INTRODUCTION 

The environment has turned out to be a central apprehension in today‘s ecological, social and economic setup. 

Environmental issues and sustainable development are more important in our current world, and a large number of people 

are much more concerned with these. Islam et al. (2020) refer that most people now acknowledge that sustaining clean air, 

water and land is more significant than lowering the cost of production for consumers.  Environmental awareness, to a 

certain extent, could be considered a budding value in our society. As a result, the preservation and enhancement of the 

environmental quality have become a gigantic issue for the corporate world (Lee, 2011).  Business houses and corporate 

enterprises are held responsible for ensuring a sustainable environment as their activities exerts tension over the 

environmental composition. It is suggested that one of the primary reasons for its existence is to serve a social and 

environmental function and given the size of the public sector and its involvement in national economies, the public sector 

plays a crucial part in promoting environmental sustainability worldwide. (Adams, Muir, & Hoque, 2014; Ball et al., 2014). 
The paradigm of sustainable business development requires holistic, integrated modes of perception. One such mode is the 

environmental accountability of the corporate organization (Burnett & Hansen, 2008). In recent years, various tools like 

life-cycle-analysis, material flow analysis, environmental reporting, corporate environmental disclosure, environmental 

auditing, and environmental accounting were developed to compare and assess the ecological impacts of products as well 

as environmental accountability of the companies (Ahmad & Mousa, 2010; Clarkson et al., 2008; Cormier & Magnan, 

                                                      
1Corresponding author: ORCID ID: 0009-0008-7720-5254 

© 2024 by the authors. Hosting by ACSE. Peer review under responsibility of ACSE, USA.  

https://doi.org/10.46545/aijhass.v6i1.328 
 

To cite this article: Rozario, S. O. D. (2024). CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOUNTABILITY (CEA) ASSESSMENT OF THE CORPORATE 

ORGANIZATIONS OF BANGLADESH. American International Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, 6(1), 13–25. 
https://doi.org/10.46545/aijhass.v6i1.328 

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
https://www.openaccess.nl/en
https://doi.org/10.46545/aijhass.v6i1.328
https://orcid.org/0009-0008-7720-5254


Rozario, American International Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences 6(1) (2024), 13-25 

 

14 

2007). Rahman and Rahman (2020) suggest that most of the people are in favor of green reporting and its implications for 

the company and that the government is firm about its directions and protocols towards green reporting. 

Environmental degradation has direct and indirect health impacts. Sultana et al. discuss how air and water pollution 

increased respiratory diseases and waterborne illnesses, highlighting the urgent need for comprehensive health and 

environmental policies. Over the years, corporate environmental accountability has developed to include environmental 

contemplation. Environmental issues such as environmental pollution and environmental litigations have become more 

prominent economic, social and political problems throughout the world, particularly in relation to trade and commerce 

(Burnett & Hansen, 2008; Walsh et al., 2003). These have forced business organizations to engage them to confirm some 

environmental responsibility in the form of environmental accountability and reporting (Cho & Patten, 2007). Rahman and 

Rahman (2020) emphasize that deforestation for agriculture and urban development threatens biodiversity and exacerbates 

climate change. The loss of habitat has led to a decline in various species, impacting local ecosystems and communities.  

Environmental accountability of the business organization principally refers to the responsibility of a business organization 

for the deterioration of the natural environment, implying the allocation of environmental costs to the economic activities 

that cause such deterioration. Environmental protection costs some other environmental cost drivers as well, and more 

precisely, environmental accountability of this important segment of the society has already been the purpose of several 

research (Clarkson et al., 2008; Cormier & Magnan, 2007; Larrinaga-Gonzalez & Bebbington, 2001). Research by Islam et 

al. (2020) shows that cities like Dhaka face severe waste disposal issues, with only about 50% of waste being managed 

properly.  This leads to pollution and health hazards exacerbated by inadequate infrastructure. So, in this study, for the first 

time, an intention has been made to develop a tool for use in corporate environmental accountability (CEA) assessment that 

allows for comparative analysis and enables more in-depth exploration of the qualitative setting contributing to the 

quantitative outcome using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). The study’s results indicated that the Image/Relationship 

played the most significant role among all the attributes cost center, where Remediation was the least important.  

In order to determine the key criteria for the cost center for corporate environmental accountability (CEA) 

assessment, a series of thirty discussion events were planned with practitioners and specialists from the Department of 

Environment, the Judiciary Department, non-governmental organizations, environmental scientists, cost and management 

accountants, lawyers, industrialists, members of the chamber house (association of industrialists), social and political 

leaders, and academicians. Twenty-four sub-attribute cost centers were then finalized under the sphere of six attributes cost 

centers after the attributes and sub-attribute cost centers were tested in the field through ten focus group discussions (FGDs) 

with the corporate organization’s low, mid, and high-level executives. The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a popular 

and useful approach for decision-making regarding multiple criteria. AHP entails creating a matrix of pairwise comparisons 

between various attributes and sub-attributes. As shown in Table 2, ratings are methodically assessed to determine the 

relative importance of two criteria on a continuous scale from 1/9 (least important) to 9 (most important) (Saaty, 1977). This 

process creates the pairwise comparison matrix. The results clearly show that, when considering the overall weights of all 

sub-attributes, the Image/Relationship attributes are the most important (having a 25% weight), followed by Regulatory 

(having a 23%) and Contingent (18%). The vector of weights also shows that Remediation is the least important (having a 

3% weight) to the CEA assessment (figure 3). In conclusion, given that businesses around the world are dealing with stricter 

environmental laws and regulations, heightened public awareness of the ecological effects of commercial and business 

operations, and growing investor pressure to reconsider their position on environmental issues like climate change. This 

research suggests that a unified framework for evaluating corporate environmental accountability (CEA) should be 

developed. Additionally, this work is an ongoing effort to establish such a unified framework for CEA assessment. 

 

LITERATURE REVIEW 

Corporate environmental accountability (CEA) has evolved from a supplementary aspect of corporate responsibility to a 

fundamental component of business strategy. As global environmental concerns rise, organizations increasingly find 

themselves accountable for their ecological footprint (Kramarz & Park, 2016). Corporate environmental accountability 

refers to the responsibility of organizations to disclose, manage, and mitigate their environmental impacts. Organizations 

seek to justify their operations to maintain legitimacy in the eyes of stakeholders. Theoretical foundations such as 

Stakeholder Theory play a crucial role in framing CEA, asserting that businesses must address the interests of all 

stakeholders, including those who are directly or indirectly affected by environmental practices (Konwar et al., 2024; 

Schaltegger, Hörisch, & Freeman, 2019). Stakeholder engagement is crucial in assessing environmental impacts. Business 

worlds are increasingly blamed for the environmental impact of their operational activities after the Earth Summit held in 

Rio de Janeiro in 1992, according to Belal (2000). The reason for this change can be partly explained by the so-called green 

revolution and the global environmental concern, especially environmental legislation; the possibility of an environmental 

crisis, as well as by a wider concern for issues of social injustice (Calculli et al., 2021; Ahmad & Mousa, 2010). Other 

factors include customer awareness, supply chain relations and activities of environmental campaigners like Greenpeace 

and the Worldwide foundation for Nature. So, corporate environmental accountability has emerged during the last two 

decades in response to these mentioned issues (Moisescu & Gicǎ, 2020). The rise in interest in response to these issues has 

a marked variation across corporations and countries. Society, particularly from developed countries, is highly concerned 

about the impacts on the quality of their life due to air, land and water pollution. As a result, for most of the world’s 

developed countries, corporate environmental accountability has developed voluntarily (Perkins, 2007). 

Bangladesh is still at its initial phase of industrialization. But it does not mean that the risk of environmental 

degradation from business operations is lower here. Rather, the problem of environmental degradation by the business 

operations is aggravated here to some extent due to poor and weak enforcement of legislation in Bangladesh (Syed, 2023; 

Hossain et al., 2020). One such incidence of environmental degradation by the business operations is the Buriganga River, 



Rozario, American International Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences 6(1) (2024), 13-25 

 

15 

Dhaka. About 60,000 tons of raw hides and skins are processed in these tanneries yearly, releasing nearly 95,000 L of 

untreated effluents into the open environment daily. Bangladesh is under the great menace of environmental stress from 

corporate business operations because it is the world’s most densely populated country, which means if pollution occurs at 

any place by even one polluting agent, a large population remains at risk of being exposed to it. Bangladesh has been 

experiencing a shift from traditional agricultural sector to non-traditional industrial and service industries in recent years.  

The Life Cycle Assessment method evaluates the environmental impacts of a product throughout its life cycle, providing a 

comprehensive view of corporate responsibility (Klöpffer, 2006). Studies highlight a positive correlation between 

transparency in environmental reporting and corporate reputation (Delmas & Blass, 2010). Companies that are more open 

about their environmental impacts often gain stakeholder trust. Several studies both at national (Belal, 2000; Imam, 1999) 

and international (Lee, 2011; Lucas & Wilson, 2008; Masanet-Llodra, 2006; Perkins, 2007) have been carried out related 

to the corporate world emphasizing different aspects of environmental accountability. Some pointed out the relationship 

between environmental management and financial performance (Xu & Chen, 2020; Voinea et al., 2020; Lucas & Wilson, 

2008). Lee (2011) tries to explore motivations, barriers, and incentives for companies to adopt Environmental Management 

Cost Accounting and related guidelines. Perkins (2007) focuses on the uneven dynamics of corporate greening within a 

theoretical framework of convergence, firm specificity, and heterogeneity. However, most of the authors (Lehman, 1999; 

Masanet-Llodra, 2006; Yakhou & Dorweiler, 2004) focus on either the environmental management system developed, or 

environmental accounting used as a tool for environmental management systems in today’s corporate world. In Bangladesh, 

all of the prior work (Belal, 2000; Imam, 1999) is on the company’s disclosed environmental information in the directors’ 

report or in the chairman’s statement, or elsewhere in their annual reports. Research indicates that robust environmental 

accountability frameworks can lead to better compliance with environmental regulations, reducing the risk of fines and legal 

challenges (Gunningham et al., 2018). Investors increasingly rely on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Metrics 

criteria to assess corporate accountability, with numerous indices and rating agencies providing benchmarks for performance 

(Berg et al., 2022; Eccles et al., 2014). All of the previous research concludes that the information disclosed is qualitative 

in nature, that companies did not follow any specific or standard reporting format, and most importantly, that not a single 

company disseminated any quantitative information on environmental items. Therefore, it is important to assess corporate 

environmental accountability (CEA) and scale up the corporate world’s capacity to adapt to the newly emerged issues of 

environmental accountability.  

A lack of standardized data makes it difficult to compare environmental performance across organizations (Hahn 

& Kühnen, 2013). Some companies may engage in superficial environmental reporting to enhance their public image 

without making substantial changes (Lyon & Maxwell, 2011). Many organizations struggle to integrate environmental 

accountability into their core business strategies, leading to fragmented efforts (Benn et al., 2014). 

The literature on corporate environmental accountability assessment reveals a growing recognition of its 

importance in enhancing corporate sustainability and stakeholder trust. While frameworks and methodologies are well-

established, challenges such as data standardization and greenwashing persist. Future research should focus on investigating 

how corporate environmental accountability integrates with broader CSR efforts and the implications for corporate strategy 

(Bhat et al., 2024). Moreover, there is also a possibility for research on developing frameworks for assessing the real impact 

of corporate environmental initiatives on sustainability outcomes, including biodiversity and ecosystem services. 

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS 

Data collection and Research design 

A succession of 30 discussion events was organized with practitioners and specialists from the Department of Environment, 

the Judiciary Department, NGOs, environmental scientists, cost and management accountants, lawyers, industrialists, 

members of the chamber house (association of industrialists), social and political leaders, and academicians to make out 

essential criteria cost center for corporate environmental accountability (CEA) assessment. Through this participatory path, 

different attributes and sub-attributes cost center were branded for corporate environmentally assessment. The attributes and 

sub- attributes cost center were then tested in the field through 10 FGD (focus group discussion) with low, mid and high 

level executives of the corporate organization and subsequently, 24 sub-attributes cost center under the sphere of 6 attributes 

cost centers were finalized (Table 1). Sub-attributes of each attributes were evaluated to come across the environmental 

accountability condition or status of a corporate entity. The sub-attributes are the foundation of the CEA assessment tool 

that helps to spot the strengths, weakness, and gaps in the accountability assessment.  

 

Table 1. Attributes and sub-attributes for CEA assessment in Bangladesh 

 
Attributes Sub-attributes 

Regulatory Monitoring, inspection and testing; Protective equipment; Certification and labeling; Environmental Management Plans 

Internal Voluntary Employee health and satisfaction, Environmentally driven R&D, Environmental audits, Feasibility studies 

External Voluntary Environmental studies and research, Environmental reporting, Environmental Training, Medical Surveillance 

Remediation Pollution treatment costs, Waste management costs, Environmental taxes and fees, Recycling 

Image/Relationship Corporate image, Relationships with investors, Relationship with customers, Relationships with regulators 

Contingent Penalties and fines, Future compliance, Personal damages, Natural resource and ecosystem damages 

 

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) was developed to enable an individual or group of individuals to define a 

specific problem and derive a solution based on individuals’ or groups’ experience of that problem, by Saaty (Saaty, 2008). 

AHP helps capture both subjective and objective evaluation measures, providing a useful mechanism for checking the 

consistency of the evaluations thus reducing bias in decision making (Wong & Li, 2008). The AHP technique is employed 



Rozario, American International Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences 6(1) (2024), 13-25 

 

16 

to rate a set of alternatives or to select the best in a set of alternatives. The ranking is done with respect to an overall goal, 

which is broken down into a set of attributes and sub- attributes.  In the present study, the data were collected from 6 types 

of corporate organization, viz., Shipping, Banking, Manufacturing, Telecommunication, Construction and Pharmaceuticals. 

Data were collected through structured interviews from 300 corporate executives encircling low, mid and high level 

management. The extent to which the interviewed corporate organizations were within the same category was fairly uniform. 

As random sampling is not required for the AHP, interviewees were not selected in the present study in a random fashion. 

Accordingly, executives with the greatest experience and respect within each corporate organization were purposely sought. 

Each interviewee was asked to compare a series of elements (attributes and sub-attributes) for AHP that would best explain 

the CEA.  AHP methodology is already applied in different studies (Karimi et al., 2011; Leunga et al., 1998; Young et al., 

2010).  In this study, for the first time, AHP is being used to decompose corporate environmental accountability into a 

hierarchy that consists of different essential elements. In the context of this study, a simple three-level hierarchical structure 

was developed (Figure 1).  

 
Figure 1. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) tactic for Corporate Environmental Accountability (CEA) assessment in 

Bangladesh. 

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Data analysis 

AHP is widely used as an effective tool for multi-criteria decision making. AHP involves the construction of a pair-wise 

comparison matrix of different attributes and sub attributes. To develop the pair-wise comparison matrix, ratings are 



Rozario, American International Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences 6(1) (2024), 13-25 

 

17 

systematically scored for judging the relative importance of two criteria on a continuous scale from 1/9 (least important) to 

9 (most important) (Saaty, 1977), as represented in the table 2. 

 

Table 2.  The fundamental importance scale used for judging the relative importance of two criteria in the decision making 

process. 
 

1/9 1/8 1/7 1/6 1/5 1/4 1/3 1/2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

Extremely Very strongly Strongly Moderately Equally Moderately Strongly Very 

strongly 

Extremely 

Less important  More important 

 

To some extent human judgment may inconsistent, and hence the comparison matrix. Particularly, a matrix A (i, 

j) is said to be consistent if all its elements follow the transitivity and reciprocity rules below: 

 

A i,j= A i,k. A j,k………………………...(1) 

A i,j= 1/ A j,i…………………………….(2) 

 

Where i, j and k are any alternatives of the matrix. A matrix is considered as consistent if it satisfies the following condition.  

 

A .w = nw………………………………. (3) 

 

Where A is the comparison matrix, w is the eigenvector and n is the dimension of the matrix. For an inconsistent matrix, to 

overcome the inconsistency associated with the pair wise comparison matrix, Saaty (2003) shows that there is a relationship 

between the vector of weights, w and the matrix A. 

 

Aw=λ max w…………………………… (4) 

Where w is the n- dimensional eigenvector associated with the largest eigenvalue λ max.  The measure of inconsistency is 

based on the observation that λ max > n for positive, reciprocal matrix, and λ max> n if and only if A is a consistent matrix. 

Saaty (2008) gave, a measure of consistency, called Consistency Index (CI) as a deviation or a degree of consistency using 

the following formula. 

 

CI= λ max-n/n-1--------------------------------- (5) 

To use the calculated Consistency Index, it compared with the random consistency index (RI) as represented in the table 3. 

 

Table 3.  Random consistency index (RI) for n= 1, 2, 3…10 used in the decision making process. 

 
N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

RI 0 0 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49 

 

Consequently, a Consistency Ratio (CR) is a comparison between Consistency Index and Random Consistency Index, to 

represent the consistent or inconsistent judgment as represented in the following formula. 

 

CR=CI/RI------------------------------------------------- (6) 

 

If the value of Consistency Ratio is smaller or equal to 10% or 0.10, the inconsistency is acceptable. Alternately, if the 

Consistency Ratio is greater than 10% or 0.10, the subjective judgment should be revised (Saaty, 1977). 

24 sub attributes or criteria under 6 attributes were considered for CEA assessment in this study (table 1).  Weights 

for each criterion was determined through pair-wise comparisons by 300 corporate executives encircling low, mid and high 

level management. The four sub-attributes of regulatory, internal voluntary, external voluntary, remediation, 

image/relationship, and contingent were computed at first and then combined all the 24 sub-attributes to assess the corporate 

environmental accountability (CEA) in Bangladesh. Data analysis for AHP process was performed using MS Excel 

spreadsheet and an example of worked spread sheet is presented in the table 4. Statistical analysis was performed using 

SPSS 18.  

 

Table 4. Example of worked spread sheet for corporate environmental accountability (CEA) in Bangladesh 

Weight Decimal Normalized matrix Priority 

vector  M P C E M P C E M P C E 

M 1 1 1 ½ 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.2 0.16667 0.33333 0.125 0.22 

P 1 1 ½ ½ 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.2 0.16667 0.16667 0.125 0.16 

C 1 2 1 2 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.2 0.33333 0.33333 0.500 0.35 

E 2 2 ½ 1 2.00 2.00 0.50 1.00 0.4 0.33333 0.16667 0.250 0.27 

Sum 5 6 3 4 5.00 6.00 3.00 4.00 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0  

 

 

 



Rozario, American International Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences 6(1) (2024), 13-25 

 

18 

Note:  

M= Monitoring, inspection and testing, P= Protective equipment, C= Certification and labeling, E= Environmental 

Management Plans.  

λ max= 4.198, CI=0.066, RI=0.9, CR=7.3% 

1. We sum each column of the reciprocal matrix and then we divide each element of the matrix with the sum of its 

column to have normalized relative weight.  The sum of each column of normalized matrix is 1. 

2. The normalized principal Eigen vector or priority vector obtained by averaging across the rows of normalized 

matrix. Since it is normalized, the sum of all elements in priority vector is 1. The priority vector shows relative 

weights among the attributes and sub-attributes that we compare. 

3. λ max= (5.00×0.22) + (6.00×0.16) + (3.00×0.35) + (4.00×0.27)= 4.198. 

4. CI= λ max-n/n-1= 4.198-4/4-1=0.066. 

5. CR= CI/RI= 0.066/ 0.9= 7.3% 

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 

Obtained data from different managerial executives through a structured interview process and consequent data analysis 

revealed that the six attributes of cost center used during the present study provide an integrated approach for the corporate 

environmental accountability assessment. Explicitly, the present findings provide edifying examples of how different high, 

mid and lower-level corporate executives of various corporate organization in Bangladesh recognize the credence of cost 

center impact on their capacity to build and manage environmental accountability in their corporate organization in the 

context of present days highly interactive business, society and natural environment association. The weight of regulatory, 

internal voluntary, external voluntary, remediation, image/relationship and contingent attributes cost center and relevant 

sub-attributes cost center for corporate environmental accountability assessment as perceived by different executives of the 

corporate organizations of Bangladesh through pair-wise comparison matrix presented in table 5, 6 and 7. Monitoring, 

inspection, and testing account for 52.8% of shipping, followed by telecommunication (45.31%) corporate organization as 

perceived by their executives for assessing there environmental accountability. While protective equipment is the concern, 

different executives weighted it for environmental accountability as 33.9% (construction) followed by manufacturing 

(31.24%) (Table 5).  Interestingly, corporate image cost centers were weighted as 71.2%, 56.1% and 42.1% for 

telecommunication, banking and construction, respectively, by their executives for assessing the corporate environmental 

accountability (Table 6).  

 

Table 5. The credibility of different attributes cost center (Regulatory, Internal Voluntary and External Voluntary) and sub-

attributes cost center on corporate environmental accountability assessment as perceived by different executives of the 

corporate organizations of Bangladesh 

 
Corporate organization 

Attributes Sub-

attributes 

Shipping Banking Manufacturing Telecommunicati

on 

Construction Pharmaceuticals 

Weights % Weights % Weights % Weight

s 

% Weights % Weights % 

              

Regulatory Monitoring, 

inspection 

and testing 

0.5283 

 

52.8 0.359 35.9 0.2812 28.12 0.4531 45.31 0.301 30.1 0.3332 33.2 

Protective 
equipment 

0.3007 30.0 0.240 24.0 0.3124 31.24 0.2673 26.73 0.339 33.9 0.3012 30.1 

Certification 

and labeling 

0.1002 10.0 0.281 28.1 0.2913 29.13 0.2234 22.34 0.292 29.2 0.3121 31.2 

Environment
al 

Management 

Plans 

0.0708 7.08 .120 12.0 0.1151 11.51 0.0562 5.62 0.068 6.8 0.0535 5.35 

Consistency 

ratio (CR) 

0.0174 0.0132 0.0041 0.0013 0.0024 0.0321 

Internal 

Voluntary 

Employee 

health and 
satisfaction 

0.578 57.8 0.667 66.7 0.3907 39.07 0.5531 55.31 0.3476 34.7 0.5142 51.4 

Environment

ally driven 
R&D 

0.256 25.6 .245 24.5 0.3231 32.31 0.0543 5.43 0.1634 16.3 0.3211 32.1 

Environment

al audits 

0.100 10.0 0.056 5.6 0.1541 15.41 0.2462 24.62 0.3254 32.5 0.1211 12.1 

Feasibility 
studies 

0.066 6.6 0.032 3.2 0.1321 13.21 0.1464 14.64 0.2732 27.3 0.0436 4.36 

Consistency 

ratio (CR) 

0.0043 0.0063 0.0112 0.0021 0.0116 0.0322 

External 

Voluntary 

Environment
al studies 

and research 

0.153 15.3 0.47 47 0.3346 33.46 0.3541 35.4 0.087 8.70 0.3314 33.1 



Rozario, American International Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences 6(1) (2024), 13-25 

 

19 

Environment

al reporting 

0.161 16.1 .177 17.7 0.3412 34.12 0.2453 24.5 0.258 25.8 0.1527 15.2 

Environment

al Training 

0.383 38.3 0.228 22.8 0.2431 24.31 0.2513 25.1 0.251 25.1 0.1824 18.2 

Medical 
Surveillance 

0.303 30.3 0.125 12.5 0.0811 8.11 0.1493 14.93 0.404 40.4 0.3335 33.3 

Consistency 

ratio (CR) 

0.01127 0.0036 0.0021 0.0022 0.0018 0.0432 

 
Table 6. The credibility of different attributes cost center (Remediation, Image/Relationship and Contingent) and sub-

attributes cost center on corporate environmental accountability assessment as perceived by different executives of the 

corporate organizations of Bangladesh 

  
Corporate organization 

Attributes Sub-

attributes 

Shipping Banking Manufacturing Telecommunication Construction Pharmaceuticals 

Weights % Weights % Weights % Weights % Weights % Weights % 

Remediation Pollution 

treatment 
costs 

0.1568 15.6 0.0176 1.7 0.3127 31.2 0.0215 2.15 0.0241 2.4 0.2819 28.1 

Waste 

management 

costs 

0.2538 25.3 0.0354 3.5 0.2951 29.5 0.0178 1.78 0.4521 45.2 0.1526 15.2 

Environmental 

taxes and fees 

0.3274 32.7 0.9045 90.4 0.3012 30.1 0.7849 78.4 0.3981 39.8 0.4794 47.9 

Recycling 0.2620 26.2 0.0425 4.25 0.0910 9.10 0.1758 17.5 0.1257 12.5 0.0861 8.61 

Consistency 

ratio (CR) 

0.0347 0.0031 0.0561 0.0381 0.0017 0.0021 

Image/Relationship Corporate 
Image 

0.3738 37.3 0.5613 56.1 0.4162 41.6 0.7123 71.2 0.4218 42.1 0.3781 37.8 

Relationships 

with Investors 

0.1756 17.5 0.0312 3.12 0.1124 11.2 0.0241 2.41 0.2215 22.1 0.2416 24.1 

Relationship 
with 

customers 

0.1984 19.8 0.3417 34.17 0.2831 28.3 0.1873 18.7 0.0916 9.16 0.3612 36.1 

Relationships 
With 

regulators 

0.2522 25.2 0.0658 6.58 01883 18.8 0.0763 7.63 0.2651 26.5 0.0191 1.91 

Consistency 

ratio (CR) 

0.0765 0.0051 0.0327 0.0018 0.0026 0.0613 

Contingent Penalties and 

fines 

0.4812 48.1 0.4178 41.7 0.3351 33.5 0.0216 2.16 0.4178 41.7 0.3512 35.1 

Future 

compliance 

0.3117 31.1 0.5574 55.7 0.3170 31.7 0.7123 71.2 0.5123 51.2 0.3219 32.1 

Personal 

damages 

0.1666 16.6 0.0123 1.23 0.3329 33.2 0.2451 24.5 0.0531 5.31 0.2918 29.1 

Natural 

resource and 
ecosystem 

damages 

0.0405 4.05 0.0125 1.25 0.0150 1.5 0.021 2.1 0.0168 1.68 0.0351 3.51 

Consistency 

ratio (CR) 

0.00367 0.0023 0.0031 0.0034 0.0011 0.0713 

 

Table 7. The overall credibility of six attributes cost center of corporate environmental accountability assessment for 

different corporate organizations of Bangladesh during the present study 

Attributes Corporate organization 

Shipping Banking Manufacturing Telecommunication Construction Pharmaceuticals 

Weights % Weights % Weights % Weights % Weights % Weights % 

Regulatory 0.2214 22.1 0.1524 15.2 0.2313 23.1 0.0232 2.32 0.2442 26.4 0.2051 20.5 

Internal Voluntary 0.1816 18.1 0.2815 28.1 0.1825 18.2 0.3122 31.2 0.2012 27.1 0.1914 19.1 

External Voluntary 0.1521 15.2 0.1731 17.3 0.1523 15.2 0.2871 28.7 0.1161 12.6 0.1061 10.6 

Remediation 0.0188 1.88 0.0106 1.06 0.2451 24.5 0.0222 2.22 0.1462 17.6 0.0698 6.98 

Image/Relationship 0.2481 24.8 0.2613 26.1 0.1231 12.3 0.3012 30.12 0.2816 30.1 0.2215 22.1 

Contingent 0.1780 17.8 0.1211 15.1 0.0657 6.57 0.0541 5.41 0.0107 1.07 0.2061 20.6 

Consistency ratio (CR) 0.0016 0.0135 0.0031 0.0213 0.0014 0.0027 

 
Table 7 outlines the results of the overall degree of different attributes for assessing the environmental 

accountability of the corporate organization. As shown in Table 6, the most popular attributes for assessing the corporate 

environmental accountability are the internal voluntary (31.2%) and image/relationship (30.12%) in telecommunication, 

while they are lowest in shipping (18.1%) and manufacturing (12.3%), respectively. 



Rozario, American International Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences 6(1) (2024), 13-25 

 

20 

The weights of 24 sub-attributes have resulted into CEA assessment scale and indicate their effectiveness in 

measuring the environmental accountability of different corporate organizations (figure 2). Image/relationship, regulatory 

and contingent with 24.8%, 22.1% and 17.8% weights, respectively, indicate their highest role in CEA assessment in 

shipping organizations, while remediation weights only for 1.88%. On the other hand, in case of banking and 

telecommunication, internal voluntary and image/relationship indicate their highest role in CEA assessment, while 

remediation holds the lowest. The executives of the manufacturing organization have given the highest weight to 

remediation (24.5%) and regulatory (23.1%) for CEA assessment, while making the Contingent (6.57%) the lowest. 

Image/relationship, internal voluntary and regulatory with 30.1%, 27.1% and 26.4% weights, respectively, indicate their 

highest role in CEA assessment in construction farms, while Contingent weights only for 1.07%. Image/relationship, 

contingent and regulatory with 22.1%, 20.6% and 20.5% weights, respectively, indicate their highest role in CEA assessment 

in pharmaceuticals organization, while remediation weights only for 6.98% (figure 2). 

 

Figure 2. Corporate Environmental Accountability (CEA) assessment scale shows the effectiveness of six attributes cost 

center in different corporate organizations of Bangladesh. 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Regulatory

Internal Voluntary

External Voluntary

Remediation

Image/Relationship

Contingent

Regulatory

Internal Voluntary

External Voluntary

Remediation

Image/Relationship

Contingent

Regulatory

Internal Voluntary

External Voluntary

Remediation

Image/Relationship

Contingent

Regulatory

Internal Voluntary

External Voluntary

Remediation

Image/Relationship

Contingent

Regulatory

Internal Voluntary

External Voluntary

Remediation

Image/Relationship

Contingent

Regulatory

Internal Voluntary

External Voluntary

Remediation

Image/Relationship

Contingent

 Pharmaceuticals 

 Construction 

Telecommunication 

 Manufacturing 

 Banking 

Shipping 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

Figure 2: Corporate 

Environmental 

Accountability (CEA) 

assessment scale shows the 

effectiveness of six 

attributes cost center in 

different corporate 

organizations of 

Bangladesh. 
 



Rozario, American International Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences 6(1) (2024), 13-25 

 

21 

In view of the overall weights of all sub-attributes, it is quite apparent that from the results that, the image/relationship 

attributes are the most significant (with 25% weight), followed by Regulatory (23%) and contingent (18%), while the vector 

of weights indicates the remediation is the least significant (with 3% weight) to CEA assessment (figure 3).   

 

 

 

 

 

0

20

40

60

Monitoring
, inspection
and testing

Protective
equipment

Certificatio
n and

labeling

Environme
ntal

Manage…

0
10
20
30
40
50
60

Employee
health and
satisfaction

Environme
ntally

driven R&D

Environme
ntal audits

Feasibility
studies 0

5
10
15
20
25

Regulator
y

Internal
Voluntary

External
Voluntary

Remediat
ion

Image/Re
lationship

Continge
nt

0
10
20
30
40

Environme
ntal

studies…

Environme
ntal

reporting

Environme
ntal

Training

Medical
Surveillanc

e



Rozario, American International Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences 6(1) (2024), 13-25 

 

22 

 

    

    

Figure 3. The integration process of 24 sub-attributes cost center of Regulatory, Internal Voluntary, External Voluntary, 

Remediation, Image/Relationship and Contingent cost center for corporate environmental accountability assessment in 

Bangladesh.   

0

10

20

30

40

Pollution
treatment

costs

Waste
manageme

nt costs

Environme
ntal taxes
and fees

Recycling

0

10

20

30

40

Corporate
Image

Relationshi
ps with

Investors

Relationshi
p with

customers

Relationshi
ps With

regulators 0
5

10
15
20
25
Regulatory

Internal
Voluntary

External
Voluntary

Remediatio
n

Image/Rela
tionship

Contingent

0
10
20
30
40
50

Penalties
and fines

Future
compliance

Personal
damages

Natural
resource

and
ecosyste…



Rozario, American International Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences 6(1) (2024), 13-25 

 

23 

Using the 24 sub-attributes of cost center as the input helps to develop our understanding of how the governing and 

managerial body at different levels of different corporate organizations adapt and respond proactively to emerging 

environmental issues and sustainable business development. During the present study, AHP has been applied to data from 

a large qualitative study obtained through structured interviews with many corporate executives to comprehend more 

evidently what enhances or erodes a corporate organization’s environmental accountability to adapt to the changing 

circumstances of worldwide environmental concern and sustainable development. Findings from the study, highlight 

important considerations for each of the attributes cost center in different corporate organizations and suggest ways that the 

different corporate entities can develop and manage their environmental accountability. This approach, suggested here, may 

also be an important tool for different regulatory government organizations of Bangladesh, such as the Department of 

Environment (DoE), commerce and industrial ministry, to assist with the corporate environmental accountability 

development process in Bangladesh. The government can then consider what, specifically, different corporate organizations 

need to develop organization-wide environmental accountability at the policy level by providing support and different 

resources. We thus point out that this study contributes to this sphere of literature and to broader international arguments 

and conversations regarding how to construct and develop the environmental accountability assessment for corporate 

organization worldwide. 

 

CONCLUSIONS 

The purpose of this study is to find out the significance of each of the attributes and sub attributes cost centers in different 

corporate organizations. With the strategy of sustainable economic development, the policy of Bangladesh government is 

that social and economic growth should not sacrifice environment. To ensure a sustainable economic development through 

economic and commercial activities, corporate environmental accountability (CEA) assessment undoubtedly plays a crucial 

role. In this research, the multi-criteria decision making AHP technique was used to assess quantitatively the CEA of the 

different corporate organization of Bangladesh. Monitoring, inspection and testing; protective equipment; certification and 

labeling; and environmental management plans sub-attributes cost center perceived as dominant and environmental 

management plan is the least for CEA assessment in various organizations under regulatory attributes cost center. The 

obtained results have reflected that the image/relationship attributes are the most significant, followed by Regulatory (23%) 

and contingent (18%), while the vector of weights indicates the remediation is the least significant to CEA assessment. This 

indicates that, at present, most of Bangladesh’s corporate organizations have no environmental management plan.  

Employee health and satisfaction; environmentally driven R&D sub-attributes cost center has been weighted most, 

while environmental audits and feasibility studies under internal voluntary attributes cost center were low rated for CEA 

assessment. In view of specific organization, image/relationship, regulatory and contingent attributes cost center with 24.8%, 

22.1% and 17.8% weights, respectively, indicate there highest role in CEA assessment in shipping organization, while 

remediation weights only for 1.88%. In case of banking and telecommunication, internal voluntary and image/relationship 

indicate there highest role in CEA assessment, while remediation holds the lowest. 

What is undoubtedly required is now further interest to building framework of these six attributes cost center into more 

systematic baseline measures in order to develop a standard criterion, so that a corporate entity can use them as a tool to 

assess its environmental accountability.  

There is, of course, somewhat a very good scope for future research. New research can be conducted on 

Government Organizations, Non-Government Organizations, and Social Organizations. Furthermore, this research has been 

done on Shipping, Banking, Manufacturing, Telecommunication, Constructions and Pharmaceuticals where the research 

can be conducted only on one sector separately. 

However, like many other research studies, there are limitations to this research. Only 30 discussion events were 

organized with practitioners and specialists. If these events could be more than 100, the result would be more accurate. Then 

such attributes and sub attributes were tested through 10 focus discussion group which could be around 30. Lastly, the 

research has been conducted on the said six sectors only where there are many other sectors available in the country.   

The contribution of this study to the society is to make the society aware that the image/relationship attributes is the most 

significant attribute and different corporate entity must develop their environmental accountability.  

In conclusion, as different companies worldwide are facing more stringent environmental laws and regulations, 

increased societal awareness regarding the ecological impacts of the commercial and business activities, and mounting 

pressures from investors to rethink their stance toward environmental issues like climate change. This research work 

suggests that a unified framework for assessing the corporate environmental accountability should be developed and this 

work is an ongoing attempt to develop such unified framework for corporate environmental accountability (CEA) 

assessment.  

 

 
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.O.D.R.; Methodology, S.O.D.R.; Software, S.O.D.R.; Validation, S.O.D.R.; Formal Analysis, S.O.D.R.; 

Investigation, S.O.D.R.; Resources, S.O.D.R.; Data Curation, S.O.D.R.; Writing – Original Draft Preparation, S.O.D.R.; Writing – Review & Editing, 

S.O.D.R.; Visualization, S.O.D.R.; Supervision, S.O.D.R.; Funding, S.O.D.R. Authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to the research does not deal with vulnerable groups 

or sensitive issues. 

Funding: The authors received no direct funding for this research. 
Acknowledgement: Not applicable.  

Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. 
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available 

due to restrictions. 

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



Rozario, American International Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences 6(1) (2024), 13-25 

 

24 

REFERENCES 

Adams, C., Muir, S., & Hoque, Z. (2014). Measurement of sustainability performance in the public sector. Sustainability 

Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 5(1), 46-67. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-04-2012-0018 

Ahmad, N. S. M., & Mousa, F. R. (2010). Corporate environmental disclosure in Libya: a little improvement. World Journal 

of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 6(1/2), 149-159. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/20425961201000012 

Ball, A., Grubnic, S., & Birchall, J. (2014). Sustainability accounting and accountability in the public sector. In 

Sustainability accounting and accountability (pp. 176-196). Routledge. 

Belal, A. R. (2000). Environmental reporting in developing countries: empirical evidence from Bangladesh. Eco‐

Management and Auditing: The Journal of Corporate Environmental Management, 7(3), 114-121. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0925(200009)7:3%3C114::AID-EMA131%3E3.0.CO;2-E 

Benn, S., Edwards, M., & Williams, T. (2014). "Organizational Change for Corporate Sustainability” By Routledge Taylor 

& Francis Group LONDON AND NEW YORK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315819181  

Berg, F., Kölbel, J. F., & Rigobon, R. (2022). Aggregate Confusion: The Divergence of ESG Ratings. Review of Finance, 

26(6), 1315-1344. https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfac033 

Bhat, A. A., Mir, A. A., Allie, A. H., Lone, M. A., Al-Adwan, A. S., Jamali, D., & Riyaz, I. (2024). Unlocking corporate 

social responsibility and environmental performance: Mediating role of green strategy, innovation, and leadership. 

Innovation and Green Development, 3(2), 100112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.igd.2023.100112 

Burnett, R. D., & Hansen, D. R. (2008). Ecoefficiency: Defining a role for environmental cost management. Accounting, 

organizations and society, 33(6), 551-581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2007.06.002 

Calculli, C., D'Uggento, A. M., Labarile, A., & Ribecco, N. (2021). Evaluating people's awareness about climate changes 

and environmental issues: A case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 324, 129244. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129244 

Cho, C. H., & Patten, D. M. (2007). The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: A research note. 

Accounting, organizations and society, 32(7-8), 639-647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2006.09.009 

Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D., & Vasvari, F. P. (2008). Revisiting the relation between environmental 

performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Accounting, organizations and society, 33(4-5), 

303-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2007.05.003 

Cormier, D., & Magnan, M. (2007). The revisited contribution of environmental reporting to investors' valuation of a firm's 

earnings: An international perspective. Ecological economics, 62(3-4), 613-626. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.030  

Delmas, M., & Blass, V. D. (2010). Measuring corporate environmental performance: the trade‐offs of sustainability ratings. 

Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(4), 245-260. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.676 

Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and 

performance. Management science, 60(11), 2835-2857. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1984 

Gunningham, N., Kagan, R. A., & Thornton, D. (2018). "Social License and Environmental Protection: Why Businesses 

Go Beyond Compliance." Law & Social Inquiry, 29(2), 307-341. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-

4469.2004.tb00338.x 

Hahn, R., & Kühnen, M. (2013). Determinants of sustainability reporting: A review of results, trends, theory, and 

opportunities in an expanding field of research. Journal of cleaner production, 59, 5-21. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005 

Hossain, S., Siddika, M. A., Koly, I. J., & Akter, K. (2020). Exploring the impact of environmental degradation on life 

expectancy in Bangladesh: An ARDL bounds test approach. International Journal of Science and Business, 4(12), 

69-79. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4266173 

Imam, S. (1999). Environmental Reporting in Bangladesh. Social and Environmental Accounting, 19(2), 12-14. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/0969160X.1999.9651615 

Islam, M. J., Roy, S. K., Miah, M., & Das, S. K. (2020). A Review on Corporate Environmental Reporting (CER): An 

Emerging Issue in the Corporate World. Canadian Journal of Business and Information Studies 2(3), 45-53. 

https://doi.org/10.34104/cjbis.020.045053 

Karimi, A. R., Mehrdadi, N., Hashemian, S. J., Bidhendi, G. N., & Moghaddam, R. T. (2011). Selection of wastewater 

treatment process based on the analytical hierarchy process and fuzzy analytical hierarchy process methods. 

International Journal of Environmental Science & Technology, 8, 267-280. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03326215 

Konwar, Z., Wei, Y., Wood, G., & Eng-Tuck Cheah, J. (2024). The public as a definitive stakeholder of corporate 

environmental sustainability practices: A cross-national institutional approach. Journal of Environmental 

Management, 370, 122666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.122666 

Kramarz, T., & Park, S. (2016). Accountability in Global Environmental Governance: A Meaningful Tool for Action? 

Global Environmental Politics, 16(2), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00349 

Klöpffer, W. (2006). The Hitch Hiker´s Guide to LCA - An orientation in LCA methodology and application. Int J Life 

Cycle Assessment, 11, 142. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.02.008 

Larrinaga-Gonzalez, C., & Bebbington, J. (2001). Accounting change or institutional appropriation?—A case study of the 

implementation of environmental accounting. Critical perspectives on accounting, 12(3), 269-292. 

https://doi.org/10.1006/cpac.2000.0433 

https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-04-2012-0018
https://doi.org/10.1108/20425961201000012
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315819181
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2007.06.002
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2006.09.009
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2007.05.003
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.030
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.676
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1984
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2004.tb00338.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2004.tb00338.x
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4266173
https://doi.org/10.1080/0969160X.1999.9651615
https://doi.org/10.34104/cjbis.020.045053
https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00349
https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00349
https://doi.org/10.1006/cpac.2000.0433


Rozario, American International Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences 6(1) (2024), 13-25 

 

25 

Lee, K. H. (2011). Motivations, barriers, and incentives for adopting environmental management (cost) accounting and 

related guidelines: a study of the republic of Korea. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental 

Management, 18(1), 39-49. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.239 

Lehman, G. (1999). Disclosing new worlds: a role for social and environmental accounting and auditing. Accounting, 

Organizations and society, 24(3), 217-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(98)00044-0 

Leung, P., Muraoka, J., Nakamoto, S. T., & Pooley, S. (1998). Evaluating fisheries management options in Hawaii using 

analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Fisheries Research, 36(2-3), 171-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-

7836(98)00097-6 

Lucas, M. T., & Wilson, M. A. (2008). Tracking the relationship between environmental management and financial 

performance in the service industry. Service Business, 2, 203-218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628-008-0035-5 

Lyon, T. P., & Maxwell, J. W. (2011). "Greenwash: Corporate Environmental Disclosure Under Threat of Audit." Journal 

of Economics & Management Strategy, 20(1), 3-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2010.00282.x 

Masanet-Llodra, M. J. (2006). Environmental Management Accounting: A Case Study Research on Innovative Strategy. 

Journal of Business Ethics, 68, 393–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9029-1 

Moisescu, I., & Gică, A. (2020). The Impact of Environmental and Social Responsibility on Customer Loyalty: A 

Multigroup Analysis among Generations X and Y. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public 

Health, 17(18), 6466. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186466 

Perkins, R. (2007). Globalizing Corporate Environmentalism: Convergence and Heterogeneity in Indian Industry. Studies 

in Comparative International Development, 42, 279–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-007-9007-3 

Rahman, M. M., & Rahman, M. S. (2020). Green reporting as a tool of environmental sustainability: some observations in 

the context of Bangladesh. Int. J. Manag. Account, 2(2), 31-37. https://doi.org/10.34104/ijma.020.031037 

Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 

234-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5  

Saaty, T. L. (2003). Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the Principal Eigenvector necessary? European Journal of 

Operational Research, 145(1), 85-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00227-8 

Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 

83-98. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590 

Schaltegger, S., Hörisch, J., & Freeman, R. E. (2019). Business Cases for Sustainability: A Stakeholder Theory Perspective. 

Organization & Environment, 32(1), 191-212. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026617722882 

Syed, R. F. (2023). Labor standards, labor policy, and compliance mechanism: a case study in Bangladesh. Labor History, 

65(2), 256–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/0023656X.2023.2272124 

Voinea, C. L., Hoogenberg, B. J., Fratostiteanu, C., & Bin Azam Hashmi, H. (2020). The Relation between environmental 

management systems and environmental and financial performance in emerging economies. Sustainability, 12(13), 

5309. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135309 

Walsh, J. P., Weber, K., & Margolis, J. D. (2003). Social Issues and Management: Our Lost Cause Found. Journal of 

Management, 29(6), 859-881. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063_03_00082-5 

Wong, J. K., & Li, H. (2008). Application of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in multi-criteria analysis of the selection 

of intelligent building systems. Building and Environment, 43(1), 108-125. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.11.019 

Xu, L., & Chen, H. H. (2020). Exploring the relationships between environmental management and financial sustainability 

in the energy industry on JSTOR. Energy & Environment, 31(7). 1281-1300. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X19882406 

Yakhou, M., & Dorweiler, V. P. (2004). Environmental accounting: an essential component of business strategy. Business 

Strategy and the Environment, 13(2), 65-77. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.395 

Young, K. D., Younos, T., Dymond, R. L., Kibler, D. F., & Lee, D. H. (2010). Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 

for Selecting and Modeling Stormwater Best Management Practices. Journal of Contemporary Water Research & 

Education, 146(1), 50-63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2010.00391.x 

 
Publisher’s Note: ACSE stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 

 

 
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee ACSE, USA. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons 

Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 

American International Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (P-ISSN 2643-0061 E-ISSN 2643-010X) by ACSE is licensed under a Creative 

Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.239
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(98)00044-0
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-7836(98)00097-6
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-7836(98)00097-6
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2010.00282.x
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9029-1
https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00227-8
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063_03_00082-5
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.395
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2010.00391.x
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
http://ssbfnet.com/ojs/index.php/ijrbs
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

