







































 
 

50 
© 2025 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

Asian Business Research Journal 
Vol. 10, No. 3, 50-57, 2025 
ISSN: 2576-6759 
DOI: 10.55220/25766759.318 
© 2025 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 
 

 

 
Research on the Relationship between Institutional Pressures and the Level of 
Corporate Social responsibility Disclosure: Empirical Evidence from Listed 
Companies on the Stock Market in Vietnam 

 
Pham Thi Bich Thu1

 

Tran Thi Lan Hương2 
 

 
 

1,2Hong Duc University, Thanh Hoa province, Vietnam. 
Email: phambichthu@hdu.edu.vn  
Email: tranthilanhuong@hdu.edu.vn  

 
Abstract 

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure has become a crucial aspect of business 
operations, influenced by various institutional pressures. This study examines the relationship 
between institutional pressures and the level of CSR disclosure among firms. Empirical evidence 
collected through a survey of 208 senior executives of listed firms in Vietnam’s stock exchange 
indicates that coercive pressure, normative pressure, and mimetic pressure have a positive 
relationship with various aspects of CSR disclosure levels. This study employs an empirical 
approach to assess how institutional factors influence CSR disclosure in Vietnam. The findings 
provide valuable insights for both corporate managers and policymakers in fostering a more 
transparent and responsible business environment. Finally, the research offers practical 
recommendations to enhance CSR disclosure, ensuring that businesses align with global 
sustainability standards while addressing local institutional challenges. 

 
Keywords: Empirical Evidence, Institutional Pressures, Relationship, Social Responsibility, The Stock. 

 
1. Introduction 

In the context of increasing institutional pressures on businesses, compliance and disclosure of corporate social 
responsibility (CSR) information have become essential requirements. DiMaggio & Powell’s (1983) institutional 
theory suggests that organizations tend to adapt to environmental pressures to attain legitimacy. Similarly, 
Campbell (2007) emphasizes that a firm's CSR commitment is influenced by institutional pressures, including legal 
regulations, market forces, and social organizations. Bansal & Clelland (2004) further highlight that firms facing 
greater scrutiny from the media and the public tend to increase their CSR disclosures. Therefore, understanding 
the relationship between institutional pressures and CSR disclosure is essential for businesses to formulate 
appropriate strategies that meet growing demands for transparency and sustainable development. 

Examining the relationship between institutional pressures and CSR disclosure plays a crucial role in 
identifying the factors that affect corporate disclosure behavior. Understanding how various stakeholders exert 
pressure on CSR enables firms to proactively manage their strategies, enhance transparency, and strengthen their 
corporate image. Furthermore, this research is significant for policymakers, as it provides empirical evidence to 
refine regulatory frameworks, creating incentives for companies to disclose CSR information more 
comprehensively and accurately. Consequently, fostering CSR disclosure not only promotes sustainable economic 
development but also reinforces corporate social responsibility across the business sector. 

In Vietnam, as the economy becomes increasingly integrated into global markets, the demand for transparency 
and social responsibility has become more pressing. According to the 2023 Sustainable Development Report by the 
Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VCCI), only approximately 30% of publicly listed companies fully 
disclose CSR reports in accordance with international standards, while more than 50% provide only basic 
disclosures, and 20% have not engaged in CSR reporting. This disparity in CSR disclosure levels reflects varying 
degrees of institutional pressure on businesses. Large exporting firms are compelled to comply with international 
ESG standards, whereas small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) face less pressure from customers or 
regulatory authorities. Therefore, investigating the relationship between institutional pressures and CSR 
disclosure in Vietnam is essential to assess how institutional environments influence corporate disclosure behavior, 
thereby assisting firms in adapting to and achieving sustainable growth. 

This study aims to analyze the impact of institutional pressures on the level of CSR disclosure among 
businesses. The research not only helps firms identify key pressures and develop appropriate strategies but also 
provides empirical evidence to support policymakers in establishing more effective regulatory frameworks. Based 
on the findings, this study offers recommendations to enhance CSR disclosure, strengthen corporate responsibility, 
and contribute to sustainable economic development 
 
 

mailto:phambichthu@hdu.edu.vn
mailto:tranthilanhuong@hdu.edu.vn
https://doi.org/10.55220/25766759.318


Asian Business Research Journal, 2025, 10(3): 50-57 

51 
© 2025 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

2. Literature Review 
2.1. Institutional Pressure 

Institutions encompass a set of formal rules, informal regulations, as well as shared beliefs and perceptions that 
serve to guide, constrain, or shape interactions among political actors within specific domains (Berthod, 2016). 
Within this context, organizations can be viewed as micro-institutions, embodying the full characteristics of the 
broader institutional framework. Institutional pressures influence enterprises by requiring compliance with formal 
rules such as laws, regulations, and written standards, or through informal rules such as customs and social norms. 
Conforming to these institutional rules not only helps businesses maintain their status but also ensures their 
survival within the broader institutional environment (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Jalaludin et al., 2011). 

According to institutional theory, an organization’s behavior is not only constrained by legal regulations but is 
also shaped by expectations and influences from related institutions. This results in three primary forms of 
institutional isomorphism: coercive isomorphism, normative isomorphism, and mimetic isomorphism (DiMaggio & 
Powell, 1983). Coercive isomorphism arises from regulations and laws imposed by governmental authorities, 
compelling businesses to comply in order to secure legitimacy and operational viability. Normative isomorphism is 
driven by professional standards and practices established by specialized organizations, requiring businesses 
participating in such organizations to adhere to common expectations. Lastly, mimetic isomorphism stems from 
limitations in managerial capacity and operational experience, leading firms to imitate the successful models of 
competitors or pioneering organizations to mitigate risks and enhance adaptability in the business environment. 
 

Table 1. Measurement indicators for institutional pressure. 

Factors Indicators 

Coercive Pressure Regulatory compliance pressure (laws, policies, procedures, and quality standards)  

Shareholder pressure to adhere to regulations 
Pressure from trade unions and consumer protection associations 

Normative Pressure Pressure from professional organizations on business practices 
Pressure from consumers 
Pressure from media, press 
Community and societal pressure 

Mimetic Pressure Pressure from industry leaders and multinational corporations 
Pressure from industry peers 
Competitive pressure from rival firms 
Pressure from industry trends 

Source: DiMaggio & Powell, 1983. 

 

2.2. Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure 
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure constitutes an integral part of corporate information 

disclosure. According to several scholars, CSR disclosure refers to the process of providing information on the 
environmental and social impacts of a company's business activities to relevant stakeholders. The practice of CSR 
disclosure is rooted in shareholder theory and stakeholder theory, emphasizing that businesses, while engaging in 
economic activities, must ensure a balanced approach to addressing environmental, social, and community interests. 

In Vietnam, Circular No. 96/2020/TT-BTC outlines disclosure requirements in the securities market for 
securities companies, publicly listed companies, stock exchanges, and related entities. Under this regulation, in 
addition to financial reporting obligations, companies are also required to disclose information on their 
environmental, labor, and community-related activities. Based on the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) 
Sustainability Reporting Guidelines and the provisions of Circular No. 96/2020/TT-BTC issued by the Ministry 
of Finance on securities market disclosure, the authors have developed a CSR information framework for research, 
categorized into four main groups as follows: 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



Asian Business Research Journal, 2025, 10(3): 50-57 

52 
© 2025 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

Table 2. Measurement indicators for corporate social responsibility disclosure factors. 

Factors Indicators 

Environment - related CSR disclosure 
ENV1 Disclosure of information on the total amount of raw materials used in production and service 

provision. 
EVN2 Disclosure of information on the quantity of recycled raw materials used in production and service 

provision.  
EVN3 Disclosure of information on the amount of energy consumed, both directly and indirectly 
EVN4 Disclosure of information on energy savings achieved through energy-efficient initiatives. 
EVN5 Disclosure of information on energy-saving initiatives. 
EVN6 Disclosure of information on water sources and water usage. 
EVN7 Disclosure of information on the number of legal violations and the corresponding fines imposed for 

environmental protection law infringements. 
EVN8 Disclosure of information on activities related to controlling, preventing, and remedying 

environmental pollution during business operations 
EVN9 Disclosure of information on environmental protection strategies and activities. 

Labor– related CSR disclosure 

EMP1 Disclosure of information on the number of employees and average salary levels. 
EMP2 Disclosure of information on compliance with safety standards and working conditions for 

employees. 
EMP3 Disclosure of information on healthcare policies for employees. 
EMP4 Disclosure of information on training, educational support, or financial assistance for employee 

development programs. 
EMP5 Disclosure of information on welfare benefits, recreational facilities, cultural and sports activities, 

holidays, and vacations provided to employees.  
EMP6 Disclosure of information on skill development programs and continuous learning opportunities for 

employees.  

Community – related CSR disclosure 

COM1 Disclosure of information on charitable activities and community events.  
COM2 Disclosure of information on sponsorship of community projects, such as public health initiatives 

and local socioeconomic development projects. 
COM3 Disclosure of information on job creation and skill development for the local workforce.  
COM4 Disclosure of information on activities related to developing local infrastructure and facilities. 

Customer - related CSR disclosure 

CUS1 Disclosure of information on consumer protection policies. 
CUS2 Disclosure of information on product specifications and quality standards. 
CUS3 Disclosure of information on commitments to product quality, safety, and after-sales services.  
CUS4 Disclosure of information on research and development activities for new products. 
CUS5 Disclosure of information on compliance with laws protecting consumer rights. 

  

2.3. The Relationship between Institutional Pressure and CSR Disclosure 
To establish the foundation for proposing a research model on the impact of institutional pressure on CSR 

disclosure, this study is based on three fundamental theories: legitimacy theory, stakeholder theory, and resource 
dependence theory. 

Legitimacy theory (Dowling et al., 1975) examines the alignment of corporate activities with the norms, values, 
and beliefs established within a given society. According to this theory, firms voluntarily disclose information 
about their activities to align with legal requirements and meet societal expectations. With the increasing demands 
from communities and stakeholders regarding corporate roles in sustainable development, CSR disclosure has 
progressively become an institutionalized norm and has been formalized into legal regulations. Consequently, 
businesses must align their operations with these institutionalized expectations and legal frameworks. 

Stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984) places businesses at the center of a network of relationships with various 
stakeholders, analyzing corporate responsibilities and their impact on these entities. Stakeholders can include direct 
beneficiaries of business operations, such as shareholders, employees, and government agencies, as well as those 
indirectly affected, such as customers, suppliers, local communities, and industry associations (Carroll, 1999). 

Resource dependence theory explores how external resources influence organizational behavior and operations. 
According to this theoretical framework, businesses are expected to demonstrate social responsibility by promoting 
sustainable resource use, such as energy conservation, recycling materials, and water-saving initiatives. Such 
practices not only enhance business efficiency but also contribute to achieving long-term sustainability goals. 

The relationship between institutional pressure and the extent of CSR disclosure can be explained through 
Institutional theory, which identifies three primary forms of institutional pressure: coercive, mimetic, and 
normative pressures. (1) Coercive pressure arises from legal regulations, government policies, and directives from 
regulatory bodies, compelling firms to disclose CSR-related information to ensure compliance. (2) Mimetic 
pressure occurs when firms observe and imitate industry leaders, enhancing their CSR disclosures to improve 
corporate reputation and mitigate risks. (3) Normative pressure stems from stakeholder expectations, including 
investors, customers, employees, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), urging firms to increase 
transparency in CSR disclosure to maintain credibility and social legitimacy. 

Thus, the increasing influence of institutional pressures—particularly from legal policies and stakeholder 
demands—significantly impacts the level of CSR disclosure, fostering transparency and ensuring corporate 
sustainability. Based on this relationship, the proposed research model is illustrated as follows: 

 



Asian Business Research Journal, 2025, 10(3): 50-57 

53 
© 2025 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

 
Figure 1. Proposed Research Model. 

 
Based on that, the author presents the hypotheses in the research model as follows 

H1: Coercive pressure has a positive impact on the level of environment - CSR 
H2: Coercive pressure has a positive impact on the level of employment - CSR 
H3: Coercive pressure has a positive impact on the level of customer - CSR 
H4:  Coercive pressure has a positive impact on the level of community - CSR 
H5: Normative pressure has a positive impact on the level of environment - CSR 
H6: Normative pressure has a positive impact on the level of employment - CSR 
H7: Normative pressure has a positive impact on the level of customer - CSR 
H8: Normative pressure has a positive impact on the level of community – CSR 
H9: Mimetic pressure has a positive impact on the level of environment - CSR 
H10: Mimetic pressure has a positive impact on the level of employment - CSR 
H11: Mimetic pressure has a positive impact on the level of customer - CSR 
H12: Mimetic pressure has a positive impact on the level of community - CSR 

 

3. Research Methodology 
This study employs a quantitative research methodology using SPSS 20 and AMOS to conduct exploratory 

analysis and examine the relationship between institutional pressure and the extent of corporate social 
responsibility (CSR) disclosure. The target respondents are senior managers of publicly listed companies on the 
Vietnamese stock market. Data collection was carried out using a stratified random survey from October 1, 2024, 
to November 30, 2024. A pilot test was conducted with 10 participants to refine wording, completeness, sequence, 
and potential errors in the questionnaire. The questionnaire consists of two sections: Section 1: Collects 
demographic information about respondents; Section 2: Includes 33 questions designed to assess the factors. The 
quantitative research methodology applied in this study includes: 

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA): Used to identify measurement groups for coercive pressure, normative 
pressure, mimetic pressure, and the level of CSR disclosure. 

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA): A statistical technique within Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), used to 
evaluate how well the observed variables represent the underlying constructs. CFA is employed to verify 
unidimensionality, multicollinearity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of the measurement scales in 
the model. 

Cronbach’s alpha reliability test: Used to eliminate unreliable variables before conducting factor analysis. A 
measurement scale is considered reliable if its Cronbach’s alpha ranges between 0.7 and 0.80. A scale with 
Cronbach’s alpha ≥ 0.6 is acceptable, whereas variables with a corrected item-total correlation below 0.3 are 
excluded (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). 

Structural equation modeling (SEM): Used to test the proposed research model, defining the relationships 
between latent variables (concepts measured by multiple observed variables). 

Sampling methodology: A non-probability sampling method was employed. Regarding sample size, based on Hair 
et al. (1998), for EFA, the minimum sample size should be at least five times the total number of observed variables. 
Given that this study's questionnaire includes 33 observed variables, the minimum required sample size is 
165 observations (33×5=165). To ensure robust analysis, the study initially distributed 500 questionnaires to 
senior managers in publicly listed companies on the Vietnamese stock market. A total of 208 valid responses were 
collected and deemed complete for further analysis. 
 

4. Research Results and Discussion 
4.1. Descriptive Statistics  

With 208 valid responses collected, detailed information about the research sample is presented in Table 3 as 
follows: 
 
 
 

 



Asian Business Research Journal, 2025, 10(3): 50-57 

54 
© 2025 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

Table 3. Sample statistics. 

Criteria Number of enterprises Percentage (%) 

1. Industry sector 208 100 
Agriculture and Forestry 31 14.90 
Industry and Construction 93 44.71 
Trade and Services 76 36.54 
Others 8 3.85 

2. Size 208 100 
Small enterprise 86 41.35 
Medium enterprise 90 43.27 
Large enterprise 32 15.38 

 
The observed sample consists of 208 enterprises, categorized into four industry groups: Industry and 

Construction accounts for the largest proportion (44.71%, equivalent to 93 enterprises), followed by Trade and 
Services at 36.54% (76 enterprises). The Agriculture and Forestry sector represents 14.90% (31 enterprises), while 
diversified businesses constitute 3.85% (8 enterprises) operating across multiple sectors. 

Regarding enterprise size, small firms account for 41.35% (86 enterprises). The largest proportion belongs to 
medium enterprises; comprising 43.27% (90 enterprises). Large enterprises represent only 15.38% (32 enterprises), 
indicating a relatively low proportion of large enterprises in the sample. 
 

4.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) 
The study employs Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) extraction method with Promax rotation (Gerbing & 

Anderson, 1988) and a factor loading threshold of ≥ 0.5 (Hair et al., 1998). The Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was 
conducted to examine the correlation between observed variables. 

The EFA results indicate that the total variance explained is 78.881% (>50%), the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) 
measure is 0.893 (>0.5), and Bartlett’s test is statistically significant (Sig. < 0.05) (Table 4) confirming that EFA is 
appropriate for the dataset. All factor loadings exceed 0.5, the discriminant validity among factor loadings is 
greater than 0.3, and the explained variance surpasses 50%. Additionally, the retained variables align with their 
original scale groupings (Table 5). 

 
Table 4. KMO and Bartlett's Test. 

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. 0.893 

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity 

Approx. Chi-Square 6111.111 

df 528 

Sig. 0.000 

 
Table 5. Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis. 

Pattern Matrixa 
 Factor 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
ENV5 .864       
ENV2 .849       
ENV1 .832       
ENV6 .828       
ENV9 .807       
ENV4 .807       
ENV7 .737       
ENV8 .737       
ENV3 .731       
EMP5  .949      
EMP6  .894      
EMP4  .893      
EMP1  .868      
EMP2  .866      
EMP3  .771      
CUS4   .926     
CUS2   .903     
CUS1   .871     
CUS3   .815     
NP1    .922    
NP3    .890    
NP2    .851    
NP4    .816    
MP1     .865   
MP2     .798   
MP4     .785   
MP3     .756   
CP1      .928  
CP3      .921  
CP2      .895  

COM3       .937 
COM1       .829 
COM2       .660 



Asian Business Research Journal, 2025, 10(3): 50-57 

55 
© 2025 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

4.3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) 
To measure the degree of fit between the theoretical model and the actual data, Confirmatory Factor Analysis 

(CFA) was employed. First, the study conducted tests on the independent and dependent variables, including Chi-
square (CMIN), CMIN/df, CFI, GFI, TLI, and RMSEA indices. These values are considered appropriate if GFI ≥ 
0.8; TLI, CFI ≥ 0.9 (Bentler & Bonett, 1980); CMIN/df ≤ 3 (Carmines & McIver, 1981); and RMSEA ≤ 0.08 
(Steiger, 1990). 

The CFA results (Figure 2) indicate that the factor loadings of all observed variables meet the acceptable 
threshold (≥ 0.5) and are statistically significant, with all P-values equal to 0.000. The model has 471 degrees of 
freedom, with a Chi-square/df value of 1.457 < 2, and the fit indices align well with the market data (CFI = 0.964; 
TLI = 0.959; GFI = 0.840; and RMSEA = 0.047). The correlation coefficients between factors ensure discriminant 
validity (less than 1), with P-values < 0.05 at a 95% confidence level. 

Regarding convergent validity, the standardized factor loadings in the CFA test for all observed variables are 
greater than 0.5, with a statistical significance level of P = 0.000. 

 

 
Figure 2. Result of confirmatory factor analysis. 

 
Thus, the actual data ensures convergent validity and discriminant validity, and the measurement model is 

well-fitted to the market data. 
 

4.4. Reliability Testing 
The Cronbach’s Alpha test shows that the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient for each factor is greater than 0.7, and 

all item-total correlation coefficients exceed 0.3, indicating that the measurement scales achieve reliability. The 
composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) for each factor are all greater than 0.5 (Table 6). 
Therefore, the factors in the model are deemed reliable. 
 

Table 6. Reliability Test Results of the Measurement Scale. 

Factors 
Number of Observed 

Variables 
Cronbach’s Alpha 
realiability test 

Composite 
Reliability 

(CR) 

Average Variance 
Extracted 

(AVE) 

Convergent and 
discriminant 

Validity 

CP 3 0.941 0.941 0.841 Accepted 
ENV 9 0.941 0.941 0.641 Accepted 
EMP 6 0.952 0.953 0.772 Accepted 
CUS 4 0.939 0.939 0.795 Accepted 
NP 4 0.937 0.938 0.790 Accepted 
MP 4 0.888 0.887 0.663 Accepted 
COM 3 0.855 0.861 0.677 Accepted 

 
4.5. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) 

The estimation results of the research model (Figure 3) indicate that the relationship betweet factors is 
statistically significant (P < 5%). Specifically, the model has 478 degrees of freedom, with the following fit indices: 
Chi-square/df = 1.497; CFI = 0.960; GFI = 0.834; TLI = 0.956; and RMSEA = 0.049, confirming that the model is 
well-fitted to the market data. 



Asian Business Research Journal, 2025, 10(3): 50-57 

56 
© 2025 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

 
Figure 3. Results of the standardized SEM structural model test. 

 
The estimated results of the relationships presented in Table 7, indicate that hypotheses H1, H2, H4, H5, H6, 

H7, H8, H10, H11, and H12 are supported, as their P-values are all below 5%. In contrast, hypotheses H3 and H9 
are rejected due to P-values exceeding the 5%.  
 

Table 7. Estimated results of relationships in the research model. 

  Standardized estimate S.E C.R P Note 

ENV <--- CP 0.277 0.070 3.966 *** Accepted - H1 

EMP <--- CP 0.227 0.078 2.895 0.004 Accepted - H2 

CUS <--- CP 0.083 0.066 1.251 0.211 Rejected- H3 

COM <--- CP 0.257 0.088 2.930 0.003 Accepted – H4 

ENV <--- NP 0.296 0.074 4.020 *** Accepted – H5 

EMP <--- NP 0.260 0.083 3.133 0.002 Accepted – H6 

CUS <--- NP 0.397 0.071 5.568 *** Accepted – H7 

COM <--- NP 0.193 0.093 2.084 0.037 Accepted – H8 

ENV <--- MP 0-.029 0.069 -.428 0.669 Rejected- H9 

EMP <--- MP 0.171 0.078 2.190 0.029 Accepted – H10 

CUS <--- MP 0.298 0.068 4.417 *** Accepted – H11 

COM <--- MP 0.210 0.088 2.394 0.017 Accepted – H12 

 
  The standardized estimate values from the SEM regression model indicate that the coercive pressure factor 
exerts a positive impact on the level of CSR disclosure regarding the environment, labor, and community. 
Normative pressure has a positive effect on four aspects of CSR disclosure, namely the environment, labor, 
customers, and community. In addition, mimetic pressure positively influences three aspects of CSR disclosure—
specifically, those related to labor, customers, and community. However, the coercive pressure factor does not 
significantly affect CSR disclosure pertaining to customers, while mimetic pressure does not have a significant 
effect on environmental disclosure. 
 

5. Conclusion 
  Based on a study of 208 senior managers from publicly listed companies on the Vietnamese stock market, 
empirical evidence demonstrates that institutional pressure positively impacts the level of CSR disclosure. 
Specifically, coercive pressure has the most substantial effect on environmental disclosure, followed by community-
related disclosure. Normative pressure is found to exert the strongest influence on customer-related CSR 
disclosure, followed by the environmental and labor aspects. Mimetic pressure, in contrast, shows the greatest 
impact on customer-related disclosure, then on community, and finally on labor-related CSR disclosure. 

 The findings suggest that state management agencies should refine the legal framework and enforce stricter 
regulations to enhance coercive pressure, particularly with respect to the disclosure of environmental information 
and community responsibilities. Furthermore, professional organizations and business associations are encouraged 
to promote normative pressure by establishing comprehensive CSR evaluation indices and incentivizing best 
practices in information disclosure, especially regarding customers, the environment, and labor. Finally, to amplify 
mimetic pressure, it is recommended that communication efforts be intensified around pioneering companies in 
CSR disclosure, thereby creating a ripple effect throughout the industry. Such measures are expected to bolster 
transparency and foster sustainable development within companies. 

 Although this study was conducted among publicly listed companies on the Vietnamese stock market, 
limitations related to time and budget resulted in a relatively small sample size, potentially affecting the overall 
representativeness of the findings. Moreover, as the research focused solely on evaluating the influence of 



Asian Business Research Journal, 2025, 10(3): 50-57 

57 
© 2025 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

institutional pressure on the level of CSR disclosure, its generalizability remains limited. It is plausible that other 
factors, such as company characteristics, corporate governance, and organizational culture, may also influence the 
extent of CSR disclosure. This observation provides a potential avenue for future research. 

 

Acknowledgments:  
This paper is a result of the ministerial-level scientific research project, code: B2023-HDT-03. 
 

References 
Bansal, P., & Clelland, I. (2004). Talking trash: Legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic risk in the context of the natural 

environment. Academy of Management Journal, 47(1), 93-103. https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/20159562 
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 

88(3), 588. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1981-06898-001 
Berthod, O., Grothe-Hammer, M., Müller-Seitz, G., Raab, J., & Sydow, J. (2017). From high-reliability organizations to high-reliability 

networks: the dynamics of network governance in the face of emergency. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 
27(2), 352-371. https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article-abstract/27/2/352/2629304 

Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social 
responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946-967. https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/AMR.2007.25275684 

Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables: Analysis of covariance structures. Social 
Measurement: Current Issues, 65-115. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1572543025858035328 

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational 
fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780691229270-
005/pdf?licenseType=restricted 

Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. 
Journal of Marketing Research, 186-192. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002224378802500207 

Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). (2016). G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. https://commdev.org/wp-
content/uploads/pdf/publications/Global-Reporting-Initiative-G4-Sustainability-Reporting-Guidelines.pdf 

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 207-219). Upper 
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

Jalaludin, D., Sulaiman, M., & Nazli Nik Ahmad, N. (2011). Understanding environmental management accounting (EMA) adoption: a new 
institutional sociology perspective. Social Responsibility Journal, 7(4), 540-557. 
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/17471111111175128/full/html 

Ministry of Finance (2020). Circular No. 96/2020/TT-BTC dated November 16, 2020, providing guidance on information disclosure in the 
securities market. https://vanban.chinhphu.vn/default.aspx?pageid=27160&docid=201902 

Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 
173-180. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4 

Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry (2023). 2023 Sustainable Development Report. VCCI. 

 


