




































BANGLADESH JOURNAL OF MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 9(5) (2024), 29-38 

29 

        MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 
          BJMSR VOL 9 NO 5 (2024) P-ISSN 2687-850X E-ISSN 2687-8518 

         Available online at https://www.cribfb.com 

     Journal homepage: https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/BJMSR 

                                                                                                                                                                                                    Published by CRIBFB, USA 
                                                                                                                                     

DO INSTITUTIONAL PRESSURES IMPACT VOLUNTARY 

ENVIRONMENT INFORMATION DISCLOSURE?     
 

 Jing Fan  (a)1    Haslinah Muhamad  (b)  Ridzwana Mohd Said (c)   Zaidi Mat Daud (d) 
 

(a) Student, School of Business and Economics, University Putra Malaysia, Malaysia; Lecturer, School of Accounting and Finance, Qingdao City 

University, China; E-mail: gs63454@student.upm.edu.my  
(b) Senior Lecturer, School of Business and Economics, University Putra Malaysia, Malaysia; E-mail: hasm@upm.edu.my 
(c) Associate Professor, School of Business and Economics, University Putra Malaysia, Malaysia; E-mail: ridzwana@upm.edu.my 

(d) Senior Lecturer, School of Business and Economics, University Putra Malaysia, Malaysia; E-mail: mrzaidi@upm.edu.my  
                   

 
A R T I C L E I N F O 

 
 

Article History: 

 

Received: 20th July 2024 

Reviewed & Revised: 20th July 

to 10th November 2024 
Accepted: 16th November 2024 

Published: 22nd November 2024 

 
Keywords: 
 

Coercive Pressure, Mimetic Pressure, 
Normative Pressure, Voluntary  

Environment Information Disclosure 

 
JEL Classification Codes: 

 
L1, L2, L6 

 

      Peer-Review Model:  

 

      External peer review was done through  

      double-blind method. 

        

 
A B S T R A C T      

 
Over the past decades, China's rapid economic growth has mainly come at the expense of excessive 
energy consumption, resulting in significant carbon dioxide emissions and other environmental 

challenges. China has pledged to peak its carbon emissions by 2030 to address the rising emissions, 

aiming for near-zero carbon neutrality by 2060. In this context, the legitimacy of institutions is essential, 
as it sheds light on the various effects of institutional pressures on organizational strategies and 

behaviors. Companies are increasingly improving their voluntary disclosure of environmental 

information to maintain legitimacy. However, many companies still need to determine whether the public 

and stakeholders value their environmental and social performance. Managers often believe that the 

costs of voluntary disclosure outweigh the benefits. This study analyzes how institutional pressures—

coercive, normative, and mimetic pressure—affect voluntary environmental information disclosure in 

China. We gathered survey responses from managers at 93 listed manufacturing companies based in 
China. A cross-sectional quantitative approach was utilized, with data collection occurring between 

March and May 2024. We employed Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) to 

investigate the impact of institutional pressures on the voluntary disclosure of environmental information. 

The findings suggest that coercive and normative pressures significantly enhance voluntary 

environmental information disclosure, whereas mimetic pressure shows no significant effect. These 

findings indicate that voluntary environmental information disclosure in China remains underdeveloped 

and lacks a clear industry framework. As a result, companies are increasingly prioritizing compliance 

with regulatory standards and actively engaging with stakeholders rather than simply imitating the 
behaviors of their peers. 

 
 

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

            

 

INTRODUCTION 

As the frequency of global natural disasters increases, the conflict between environmental protection and economic growth 

has become more pronounced. Globally, approximately 34.81 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide are emitted annually, 

with the United States, China, the European Union (28 countries), and India accounting for 15%, 27%, 9.8%, and 6.8% of 

global emissions, respectively (Du & Wang, 2023). This reality underscores the growing importance of environmental 

sustainability (Karwowski & Raulinajtys-Grzybek, 2021). The international community has responded by acting. For 

example, the Glasgow Climate Pact set the goal of limiting global warming to below 1.5°C and committed to achieving 

global net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Against this backdrop, the Rio+20 Summit 2012 established 17 Sustainable 

Development Goals (SDGs), approved by all signatory nations, including China, in 2015. These goals aim to balance 

economic development, social inclusion, and environmental sustainability by 2030 (Sun et al., 2018). In response to these 

global objectives, China has implemented a series of national sustainability policies, targeting a reduction in carbon intensity 

by 60-65% and peaking emissions by 2030. Furthermore, in 2020, China pledged to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 and 

reduce carbon intensity by more than 65% by 2030 (Liu et al., 2022). 

Driven by government climate change initiatives, most countries' enterprises are gradually taking actions to 

mitigate or adapt to climate change. Information disclosure offers numerous advantages, as it enhances transparency 

between shareholders (and other stakeholders) and companies (Sra et al., 2022), allowing stakeholders to monitor 

management decisions and reduce managerial discretion (Di Vaio et al., 2022). Voluntary environmental information 

                                                      
1Corresponding author: ORCID ID: 0000-0002-8898-4459 
© 2024 by the authors. Hosting by CRIBFB. Peer review is the responsibility of CRIBFB, USA.  

https://doi.org/10.46281/bjmsr.v9i5.2254 

 
To cite this article: Fan, J., Muhamad, H., Said, R. M., & Daud, Z. M. (2024). DO INSTITUTIONAL PRESSURES IMPACT VOLUNTARY 

ENVIRONMENT INFORMATION DISCLOSURE?. Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research, 9(5), 29-38. 

https://doi.org/10.46281/bjmsr.v9i5.2254 

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
https://www.openaccess.nl/en
https://doi.org/10.46281/bjmsr.v9i5.2254
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8898-4459
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9223-5610
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5395-9344
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2769-6031


Fan et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 9(5) (2024), 29-38

 

30 

disclosure has become a common demand among investors, policymakers, customers, and the public. Companies can 

disclose environmental information to evaluate their greenhouse gas emission intensity during production, assess regulatory 

and competitive risks, and identify strategies for addressing climate change. However, why do certain institutional 

behaviors, such as voluntary environmental information disclosure, become widespread within organizations? Weberian 

scholars argue that rationality drives institutional behaviors to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness. In contrast, new 

institutionalist scholars suggest that the prevalence of institutional practices is more attributable to their legitimacy and 

appropriateness in a specific context (Lodge & Wegrich, 2005). Even in unfavorable environments, voluntary environmental 

information disclosure may prevail due to institutional pressures, leading to a shared understanding and recognition of 

institutional behaviors (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).  

This study explores the impact of institutional pressures (coercive, normative, and mimetic pressures) on voluntary 

environmental information disclosure among publicly listed companies in China. In tackling climate change and reaching 

sustainable development objectives, the significance of corporate environmental transparency has grown considerably. 

Although voluntary environmental information disclosure can enhance corporate legitimacy and meet stakeholder 

expectations, the extent to which different institutional pressures influence such disclosure remains to be determined 

(Kouloukoui et al., 2021). Therefore, this study employs a cross-sectional quantitative approach, using data from 93 listed 

manufacturing companies in China, to analyze how institutional pressures affect corporate environmental disclosure 

practices. The results indicate that coercive and normative pressures significantly promote voluntary environmental 

information disclosure, while mimetic pressure shows no significant effect. These findings highlight the current state of 

voluntary environmental information disclosure in China and provide a basis for policymakers and corporate managers to 

enhance environmental transparency further.  

The structure of this paper is as follows: Section 2 discusses the literature review and hypothesis development; 

Section 3 presents the methods; Section 4 discusses the research results; and the final section presents the discussion and 

conclusions. 

 

LITERATURE REVIEW 

Coercive Pressure and Voluntary Environment Information Disclosure of the Firm 

According to institutional theory, coercive pressure arises from regulatory frameworks and social norms (DiMaggio & 

Powell, 1983). In an international study on CSR reporting, García-Sánchez et al. (2016) indicated that coercive pressure is 

a major driving force behind corporate transparency. Firms often adjust their policies and practices to match those of other 

companies encountering comparable environmental circumstances, leading to what is referred to as "institutional 

isomorphism" (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). This procedure is usually motivated by the necessity to satisfy stakeholder 

expectations and achieve enhanced legitimacy. Legitimacy reflects society's collective acknowledgment of a company and 

is crucial in ensuring its stability and survival (Latif et al., 2020). Voluntary environmental information disclosure is often 

seen as a legitimization tool for organizations, aiding in assessing and managing non-financial performance, identifying 

sustainability risks, and fostering stakeholder trust (Posadas et al., 2023; Edeh et al., 2023). Therefore, studying the 

relationship between institutional pressure and voluntary environmental information disclosure is essential. Zampone, 

Sannino, and García-Sánchez (2023) introduced a theoretical framework to investigate the connection between institutional 

pressure and the disclosure of corporate social responsibility information, highlighting that responding to institutional 

pressure through such disclosures can be viewed as a valid method of demonstrating commitments to stakeholders and 

shaping a comprehensive image of corporate social responsibility (Cubilla-Montilla et al., 2020; García-Sánchez, 2020). 

  While most past research has focused on how corporate demographic factors (such as size and age) influence 

sustainability information disclosure, there has been less emphasis on external institutional factors such as stakeholder 

pressure (Dissanayake et al., 2019; Kumar et al., 2021). However, external institutional pressures, including those from 

stakeholders, are key factors influencing sustainability information disclosure (Tahajuddin et al., 2021). Therefore, it is 

crucial to study how external factors, such as institutional pressure, affect voluntary environmental information disclosure. 

Nevertheless, previous research findings have needed to be more consistent, with mixed results regarding the relationship 

between regulatory pressure and voluntary environmental disclosure. Some research emphasizes the importance of 

regulation in improving environmental disclosure (Deegan, 2002; Latif et al., 2020), suggesting that coercive pressure 

compels companies to conform their reporting practices to official requirements. However, others argue that more than 

regulation is needed to promote higher levels of environmental disclosure (Bebbington et al., 2012; Luque-Vilchez & 

Larrinaga, 2016; La Torre et al., 2018). It could even have negative effects, particularly when regulations clash with informal 

norms within the institutional environment or are viewed as unrealistic and illegitimate by influential stakeholders 

(Bebbington et al., 2012). This is partly due to varying regulatory requirements in different institutional contexts and 

methodological limitations. The above discussion indicates that understanding these complexities and inconsistencies is 

essential for improving voluntary environmental information disclosure. This study aims to fill these gaps by examining the 

relationship between coercive pressure and voluntary environmental information disclosure among listed companies in 

China. China's unique regulatory environment and specific measures provide a relevant and significant context for such 

research. 

 

Normative Pressure and Voluntary Environment Information Disclosure of the Firm 

Gray (1988) made a significant early contribution by emphasizing the opportunity to evaluate cultural elements to enhance 

understanding of the factors influencing social systems. Gray's framework has been extensively applied in accounting 

research to explore the relationship between cultural dimensions and various domains, including management accounting 

practices, auditing, and strategic management (Hope et al., 2008). This approach has significantly enhanced our 



Fan et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 9(5) (2024), 29-38

 

31 

understanding of how cultural factors shape accounting and management practices, providing a nuanced perspective on the 

interplay between cultural dimensions and organizational behavior. Furthermore, scholars have initially utilized 

methodologies to evaluate financial reporting practices and investigate ethical behaviors. Numerous studies have explored 

the relationship between cultural influences and corporate social responsibility reporting, thereby advancing our 

understanding of the cultural determinants of CSR practices (Adams, 2017; García-Sánchez et al., 2013; Sannino et al., 

2020). Normative isomorphism, as articulated by institutional theory, involves adherence to informal norms, values, and 

cultural expectations, which are often propagated through mechanisms such as professional development, formal education, 

and social interactions (Gallego-Álvarez & Pucheta-Martínez, 2020). This theoretical perspective underscores the role of 

these unwritten elements in shaping organizational behavior. Cultural systems predominantly establish informal norms 

through professional development, formal education, and socialization—called normative pressures. These informal norms 

often profoundly influence companies' voluntary environmental information disclosure practices compared to formal 

regulatory mandates. Being socially accepted norms facilitates organizations in affirming their legitimacy within their 

operational context (Halkos & Skouloudis, 2017; Nicolò et al., 2024). Consistent with this perspective, several studies 

contend that normative pressures significantly contribute to variations in corporate non-financial reporting practices across 

different countries, irrespective of mandatory disclosure requirements (La Torre et al., 2018; Pizzi et al., 2023).  

  Despite notable recent advancements, many countries still need comprehensive and effective sustainable disclosure 

practices, raising significant concerns among governments and stakeholders (Masum et al., 2020; Masoud & Vij, 2021; 

Rashid et al., 2020). The empirical findings on the relationship between normative pressure and voluntary environmental 

information disclosure have shown inconsistencies across different studies, indicating a need for further investigation into 

these dynamics to achieve a more precise understanding. Previous studies on the reporting of Sustainable Development 

Goals (SDGs) reveal that many corporations, often unintentionally, demonstrate strong alignment with the SDG reporting 

standards established by the Global Reporting Initiative (Krasodomska et al., 2021; Pizzi et al., 2021; Tsalis et al., 2020). 

This alignment implies that normative pressures positively influence corporate sustainability reporting practices (Posadas 

et al., 2023). The study by Lakshan et al. (2022) examines the challenges associated with normative isomorphic pressures 

in evaluating the significance of non-financial information disclosure. From the perspective of institutional isomorphism, 

this research underscores the complexities inherent in determining the appropriate emphasis on non-financial reporting. 

Previous studies provide a variety of perspectives, highlighting the need for in-depth research on the influence of normative 

pressure on corporate behavior concerning non-financial reporting practices, particularly in the context of voluntary 

environmental information disclosure. In alignment with prior studies (Yusoh et al., 2024; Ben-Amar & Chelli, 2018; 

García-Sánchez et al., 2016), this study employs a normative lens within institutional theory to investigate the influence of 

normative pressures on the transparency of sustainability reporting practices in China. Specifically, it focuses on voluntary 

environmental information disclosure among listed manufacturing firms. This investigation illustrates how these pressures 

contribute to improved sustainability practices and achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Pizzi et al., 2022). 

 

Mimetic Pressure and Voluntary Environment Information Disclosure of the Firm 

Mimetic isomorphism refers to the tendency of companies to imitate the behavior patterns, strategies, and reporting practices 

of the most successful firms (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). The primary triggers for mimetic isomorphism are environmental 

uncertainty and the visibility of the company, which refers to the extent to which it is subject to public scrutiny (Gallego-

Álvarez & Pucheta-Martínez, 2020; Posadas et al., 2023). Therefore, in the absence of regulation, when companies face 

high levels of uncertainty, and their legitimacy is at risk, they tend to imitate the disclosure strategies of companies 

recognized as leaders within the same industry, country, or institutional environment to reduce the risk of losing social 

acceptance and stakeholder support (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). For example, mimetic pressure may encourage companies 

writing sustainability reports for the first time to look to exemplary firms, allowing them to imitate how these companies 

design their sustainability reports, thus leading to homogeneity in content, format, and framework (La Torre et al., 2018). 

  In emerging economies, sustainable practices still need to be developed, and there is a need for explicit industry 

models; therefore, companies often prioritize regulatory compliance and stakeholder engagement over mimetic behavior. 

This trend stems from regulatory and stakeholder pressures' direct and tangible impact on corporate legitimacy. In contrast, 

mimetic pressure is often indirect and ambiguous (Lee et al., 2024). Furthermore, studies on the relationship between 

mimetic pressure and sustainable disclosure practices have yet to produce consistent conclusions. For instance, Zampone, 

García-Sánchez, and Sannino (2023) found that mimetic pressure and CSR performance positively influence CSR 

information disclosure. 

Additionally, the interaction between mimetic pressure and CSR performance has an additional positive impact on CSR 

disclosure. However, research by Zampone, García-Sánchez, and Sannino (2023) shows that various forms of mimicry and 

competition negatively affect SDG reporting. Therefore, under China's unique institutional context, further research is 

necessary to examine the impact of mimetic pressure on voluntary environmental information disclosure. 

This study aims to understand the relationship between institutional pressures (coercive, normative, and mimetic 

pressures) and voluntary environmental information disclosure and to reveal how external institutional pressures influence 

organizational voluntary environmental disclosure behaviors. This understanding could improve organizational 

environmental performance at the institutional level and achieve the SDGs. Therefore, the following hypotheses are 

proposed in this paper: 

 

H1: Coercive pressure significantly positively influences the voluntary environment information disclosure of the firm. 

H2: Normative pressure significantly positively influences the voluntary environment information disclosure of the firm. 

H3: Mimetic pressure significantly positively influences the voluntary environment information disclosure of the firm. 



Fan et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 9(5) (2024), 29-38

 

32 

 
Figure 1. The study model 

 

Figure 1 presents the research model, where H1, H2, and H3 examine the effects of coercive, normative, and 

mimetic pressures on voluntary environment information disclosure, respectively. The subsequent section details the study's 

methods. 

MATERIALS AND METHODS 

Data Collection and Sample 

The research sample consists of listed manufacturing companies in China. The rationale for selecting Chinese manufacturing 

firms is threefold. First, China's manufacturing sector is critical in global supply chains and faces increasing environmental 

regulatory pressure, making its environmental disclosure practices highly relevant. Second, with China's government 

promoting green development strategies, manufacturing firms must balance economic growth with environmental 

protection. Finally, listed manufacturing companies in China have relatively high transparency and more comprehensive 

financial and environmental data, which facilitates data collection and analysis. 

Data collection started in early March 2024 and lasted three months, resulting in 93 responses from the selected 

companies. Despite concerns about information confidentiality leading to a lower response rate, follow-up efforts via phone 

calls, e-mails, and providing an online questionnaire option helped to increase participation. We conducted a statistical 

power analysis using G*Power 3 to ensure our sample size was sufficient. A systematic sampling method was employed to 

select sample members from the larger population based on a random starting point and fixed intervals. We alphabetically 

listed all eligible companies and chose every second company until 200 companies were selected for questionnaire 

distribution. This sampling approach ensured scientific rigor and representativeness, providing a solid foundation for 

subsequent analysis. 

 

Descriptive Analysis of Companies 

This study examined firm characteristics, including industry category, size, age, and ownership type. The service sector 

represented 25.8% of firms, with 25% of firms employing 151-200 employees. Notably, 44.10% of firms had been operating 

in China for over 40 years, indicating substantial market experience. Gender distribution among respondents was balanced 

(54.8% male, 45.2% female), and most respondents were accountants (30.1%) or held roles such as auditors, CFOs, and 

environmental managers. Nearly half (49.5%) possessed primary accounting certificates, and 53.8 % had bachelor's degrees, 

highlighting the respondents' qualifications and capability to provide relevant insights. 

 

Measures 

This study examines the relationship between voluntary environmental information disclosure and institutional pressures. 

In this study, the dependent variable is voluntary environmental disclosure, while the independent variable is institutional 

pressures, which influence the extent to which firms disclose environmental information beyond legal requirements. The 

study adopted and modified existing scales to fit the context of Chinese publicly listed companies. Respondents provided 

their answers using a five-point Likert scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample statements evaluated 

how companies increase environmental compliance indicators, pollution prevention measures, product stewardship, and 

sustainability indicators in their corporate environmental reports (CER) or annual reports. This method allowed the 

assessment of voluntary environmental disclosure by focusing on crucial indicators tailored to organizational contexts. 

Institutional pressures were categorized into coercive, normative, and mimetic pressures. Coercive pressure 

measures the extent to which companies comply with regulations set by authorities like the Securities Regulatory 

Commission in China, using scales adapted from Iliya Nyahas et al. (2017). Normative pressure assesses how well 

companies conform to professional norms established by industry groups, and it is also measured using modified scales 

from  Iliya Nyahas et al. (2017). Mimetic pressure gauges how companies imitate leading industry peers in their disclosure 

practices. This comprehensive approach facilitated analyzing how coercive, normative, and mimetic pressures influence 

voluntary environmental disclosure among Chinese listed firms. Table 1 shows the study measures. 

 

Table 1. Constructs, Measurement Items, and Sources of Measurements 
 

Constructs Measurement Items Sources of Measurements 

Coercive Pressure We follow the guidelines set by the China Securities Regulatory Commission. Iliya Nyahas et al. (2017) 

We follow the guidelines set by China's Shenzhen and Shanghai stock exchanges. 

We follow the guidelines set by China's State Environmental Protection Administration. 

Normative Pressure Our staff are encouraged to follow their professions' professional codes of ethics. 

Coercive Pressure 

Normative Pressure 

Mimetic Pressure 

Voluntary Environment 

Information Disclosure of 

the firm. 

H1 

H2 

H3 



Fan et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 9(5) (2024), 29-38

 

33 

Our industrial association emphasizes following professionalism standards. 

Our organization considers professional qualifications as part of its recruitment policy. 

Mimetic Pressure We follow industry leaders in managing uncertainties. 

We emulate our industrial peers in dealing with environmental uncertainties within our 

organizational practices. 

We use our competitors as benchmarks for handling uncertainties. 
Voluntary 

Environment 

Information 

Disclosure 

The number of environmental compliance indicators in our firm's corporate 
environmental report (CER) or annual report has significantly increased. 

The number of pollution prevention indicators in our firm's CER or annual report has 

significantly increased. 

The number of product stewardship indicators in our firm's CER or annual report has 
significantly increased. 

The number of sustainable development indicators in our firm's CER or annual report has 

significantly increased. 

 

Data Analysis  
The statistical tool used for data analysis in this study was PLS-SEM, a type of structural equation modeling known for 

handling complex path models with multiple variables (Hair et al., 2010). PLS-SEM is ideal for theory building and is 

particularly effective when sample sizes are small, as in this study's sample of 93 Chinese-listed companies. It also handles 

non-normal data and complex models well. We employed this approach to evaluate the reliability and validity of the research 

tool. Structural models facilitated the analysis of the relationships among variables, ensuring a comprehensive investigation 

of the study's hypotheses. 

 

Controls for Endogeneity Bias  

Endogeneity bias in research occurs when the researcher overlooks variables that previous studies have demonstrated to 

correlate strongly with the dependent variable of interest. However, the theoretical model omits these variables (Bartov et 

al., 2000). To eliminate this bias, we include the industrial category as a control variable since prior research consistently 

demonstrates its positive influence on voluntary environment information disclosure (Eng & Mak, 2003). By incorporating 

the industrial category into our analysis, we aim to address potential confounding factors and enhance the robustness of our 

findings regarding the determinants of voluntary environmental information disclosure among Chinese listed firms. 

 

RESULTS 

Measurement Model  

We examine several vital aspects of evaluating the measurement model, including model fit, collinearity, validity, and 

reliability. The Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values for all variables were below five, meaning there are no 

multicollinearity problems. The study confirmed that the measures are reliable. Both Cronbach's alpha and composite 

reliability showed values above 0.7, indicating strong internal consistency (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Hair et al., 2010). We 

assessed convergent validity by calculating the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each latent variable, and all AVE 

values surpassed the recommended threshold of 0.5, confirming adequate convergent validity (Henseler et al., 2016). 

Detailed results are presented in Table 2, ensuring that the latent variables demonstrate sufficient shared variance among 

their indicators, thereby validating their effectiveness in measuring the intended constructs. 

 

Table 2. Measurement Model Summary 
 

items Outer Loadings Cronbach's alpha Composite reliability (CR) AVE VIF 

Coercive pressure  0.843 0.905 0.761 1.202 

CP1 0.867     

CP2 0.856     

CP3 0.895     

Normative Pressure  0.871 0.921 0.795 1.22 

NP1 0.908     

NP2 0.875     

NP3 0.892     

Mimetic Pressure  0.825 0.895 0.74 1.133 

MP1 0.877     

MP2 0.876     

MP3 0.825     

Voluntary environment information 

disclosure 

 0.886 0.921 0.744  

VIED1 0.874     

VIED2 0.843     

VIED3 0.868     

VIED4 0.867     

 

Discriminant Validity Assessment  

We assessed discriminant validity using the Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion, which requires that the square root of the 

AVE for each latent variable exceeds its correlations with other variables (Wong, 2013). Table 3 confirms that this criterion 

is satisfied, demonstrating the presence of discriminant validity. This analysis ensures that each latent variable in the study 

measures a distinct construct from others, thereby supporting the validity of the measurement model. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-04-2016-2529
https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-04-2016-2529


Fan et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 9(5) (2024), 29-38

 

34 

Table 3. Discriminant Validity 
 

 Coercive pressure Normative 

Pressure 

Mimetic 

Pressure 

Voluntary Environment Information 

Disclosure 

Coercive pressure 0.873    

Normative Pressure 0.374 0.892   

Mimetic Pressure 0.271 0.296 0.860  

Voluntary Environment 

Information Disclosure 

0.528 0.661 0.322 0.863 

 

Structural Model  

The quality of the structural model was assessed by evaluating the path coefficients (β), coefficient of determination (R²), 

and effect size (f²), following guidelines by Henseler and Sarstedt (2013). According to their recommendations, effect sizes 

(f²) of 0.17, 0.01, and 0.46 indicate medium, minor, and substantial effects on the endogenous variable. We used these 

metrics to measure the relationship's strength and significance. This helps us understand how well the predictor variables 

explain the dependent variable and their impact on it. 

 

Test of Hypotheses  

This structure model aimed to assess the relationships between various dimensions of institutional pressures and the extent 

of voluntary environmental information disclosure among the studied firms. The analysis investigated how coercive, 

normative, and mimetic pressures influence firms' decisions to voluntary information disclosure. Figure 2 indicates decisions 

that structure the model. Detailed analysis of path coefficients in Table 4 reveals that coercive pressure positively influences 

voluntary environmental information disclosure (β = 0.311, t = 3.004, p < 0.05), supporting hypothesis 1. However, mimetic 

pressure shows no significant association with voluntary environmental information disclosure (β = 0.083, t = 0.885, p > 

0.05), thereby failing to support hypothesis 3. On the other hand, normative influences significantly contribute to explaining 

voluntary disclosure (β = 0.520, t = 5.101, p < 0.05), confirming hypothesis 2. A summary of these findings is presented in 

Table 4, outlining the significant relationships observed between institutional pressures and voluntary environmental 

information disclosure. These results provide empirical insights into how coercive and normative pressures influence firms' 

voluntary disclosure practices, highlighting the impact of mimetic pressures in this context. Furthermore, the analysis shows 

that the industry sector has no significant effect on voluntary environmental information disclosure (β = 0.002, t = 0.036, p 

> 0.05). 

 

 

Figure 2. Structural model 

 

Table 4. Path Coefficients 
 

 β T -value Sig. f2 

Coercive Pressure –>Voluntary Environment Information Disclosure 0.311 3.004 0.003 0.171 

Normative Pressure ->Voluntary Environment Information Disclosure 0.520 5.101 0.000 0.460 

Mimetic Pressure ->Voluntary Environment Information Disclosure 0.083 0.885 0.376 0.013 

Industry Sector->Voluntary Environment Information Disclosure 0.002 0.036 0.971 0.000 

Noted: R²=0.535; Adjusted R²=0.514; p-value=0.000 

 

DISCUSSIONS 

The results of the H1 analysis showed that coercive pressure positively influences voluntary environmental information 

disclosure, as expected. External coercive pressure helps to promote disclosure behaviors (Zeng et al., 2012). The sample 

companies in this study are manufacturing firms that face significant environmental legitimacy pressures due to their 

operation in environmentally sensitive industries. As a result, these companies tend to enhance voluntary environmental 

information disclosure, such as environmental compliance and pollution prevention, to achieve environmental goals. 

Similarly, the H2 analysis results indicated that normative pressure positively influences voluntary environmental 

information disclosure. Normative factors exert a more significant explanatory than coercive pressures, emphasizing 

adherence to professional ethics and industry standards in shaping disclosure practices. These findings align with the 

research by Mehedi et al. (2024), which shows that normative pressures, such as corporate values, have a significant positive 

relationship with environmental information disclosure. 



Fan et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 9(5) (2024), 29-38

 

35 

In contrast, the H3 analysis found no significant relationship between mimetic pressure and voluntary 

environmental information disclosure, contrary to the research of Wukich et al. (2024). This may be because information 

disclosure in Government regulations primarily drives actions in China rather than peer imitation. Since coercive and 

normative pressures play a more prominent role in environmental disclosure, firms may focus more on compliance and 

industry standards rather than imitating the disclosure practices of their peers. 

 

CONCLUSIONS  

This research aims to pressures—coercive, normative, and mimetic—that affect the voluntary disclosure of environmental 

information by publicly listed manufacturing firms in China. This seeks to comprehend how these external influences affect 

environmental sustainability efforts. The results indicate that under coercive and normative pressures, companies 

significantly increase voluntary environmental information disclosure and environmental regulations and meet social 

expectations, thereby achieving sustainability goals. This trend reflects the efforts of companies to enhance legitimacy and 

social acceptance through environmental information disclosure in response to external institutional demands and market 

competition. Additionally, China's "carbon peak and carbon neutrality" targets, announced in 2020, have increased the 

demand for corporate environment information disclosure to meet objectives. However, the influence of mimetic pressure 

is insignificant, suggesting that firms tend to respond more directly to social norms when facing environmental uncertainties. 

These findings indicate that institutional pressures are vital drivers of environmental information disclosure, particularly in 

the context of China's capital targets, where the demand for disclosure continues to rise. The results provide insights for 

policymakers to optimize environmental policies and further enhance corporate environmental transparency and social 

responsibility. 

This study offers several contributions and insights. It is one of the pioneering studies that, based on institutional 

theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983), establishes a research framework incorporating coercive pressure, normative pressure, 

mimetic pressure, and voluntary environmental information disclosure. Institutional theory expands the factors influencing 

organizations' voluntary environmental information disclosure, thereby enhancing environmental disclosure. Given the 

limited research on institutional theory, the current study's findings are valuable, particularly in China, where the "dual 

carbon" policy places significant emphasis on the environment. The research identifies coercive, normative, and mimetic 

pressures as components of institutional pressures, although previous studies have primarily overlooked mimetic pressure. 

Therefore, the research framework in this paper highlights these three critical institutional pressures as part of environmental 

solutions and contributes to sustainability development. 

The findings of this study provide practical implications for managers in developing countries. Institutional 

pressures significantly enhance organizations' voluntary environmental information and improve the impact of proactively 

responding to such pressures. Managers should consider adopting voluntary environmental information disclosure practices 

to maintain environmental protection and make informed investment decisions. Given the critical roles of coercive and 

normative pressures highlighted in the study, managers should be aware that critical environmental regulations and industry 

standards positively influence corporate environmental disclosure practices. Making informed decisions on voluntary 

environmental information disclosure can assist China in achieving its 2030 carbon peak and 2060 carbon neutrality goals. 

Ultimately, this alignment can support companies in engaging in environmental disclosure practices. The results give 

auditors insights into how Chinese-listed manufacturing companies perceive and implement voluntary environmental 

information disclosure. Environmentally sensitive firms should actively participate in these disclosure practices, advancing 

the theoretical understanding of environmental disclosure and contributing to sustainable development. 

The Chinese government should leverage the findings from this empirical analysis to formulate industry-acceptable 

and effective environmental regulatory policies. The China Stock Exchange should also reassess the practices of voluntary 

environmental information disclosure in sustainable development reports to ensure that all stakeholders understand and 

recognize the concept. Since China established ambitious targets in its 2020 "carbon peak and neutrality" goals, businesses 

must actively contribute to achieving these sustainability objectives. The study's results suggest that companies in 

developing countries should transform significantly by integrating institutional pressures with voluntary environmental 

information disclosure to drive the changes needed for economic, social, and environmental sustainability. Enhancing 

voluntary environmental information disclosure practices can lead to developing a zero-waste society, thereby reducing 

environmental pollution and emissions. 

The study's limitations provide helpful directions for future research. Data collection may have a potential bias 

since the survey targeted listed manufacturing companies in China. A larger sample size could provide more comprehensive 

insights into unexplained dimensions specific to the Chinese manufacturing sector. Future research should expand beyond 

the manufacturing industry to explore how institutional pressures affect voluntary environmental information disclosure in 

other sectors. This study recommends that future researchers validate and refine the proposed framework. Therefore, future 

studies should utilize longitudinal data and consider mediating and moderating variables to test the proposed conceptual 

model. Interviewing non-manufacturing industry environmental experts and senior managers could offer more profound 

insights. Case studies also help explain the role of institutional pressures and the sustainability of these changes over time. 

Despite these limitations, the findings show that coercive and normative pressures are essential to improving 

voluntary environmental information disclosure within organizations. Overall, the research extends the literature on 

institutional theory and environmental disclosure in several ways. For example, it examines the relationship between 

coercive, normative, and mimetic pressures and voluntary environmental information disclosure through quantitative 

research. It recommends a research framework for Chinese-listed manufacturing companies to gain a more positive 

advantage. This study mainly advances theoretical development by clarifying the impact of institutional pressures on 



Fan et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 9(5) (2024), 29-38

 

36 

organizational sustainability in developing countries. 

 

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.F., H.M. and R.M.S.; Methodology, J.F., H.M. and R.M.S.; Software, J.F.; Validation, Z.M.D.; Formal 
Analysis, J.F.; Investigation, J.F., H.M. and R.M.S.; Resources, J.F.; Data Curation, J.F.; Writing - Original Draft Preparation, J.F.; Writing - Review & 

Editing, R.M.S. and Z.M.D.; Visualization, H.M.; Supervision, R.M.S. and Z.M.D.; Project Administration, J.F. and H.M.; Funding Acquisition, J.F. 

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 on vulnerable groups or sensitive 

issues. 

Funding: The Qingdao City University school-level scientific research project "The Impact of Green Credit Policy on Enterprise Green Total Factor 
Productivity under the Background of 'Dual Carbon' – An Empirical Study Based on the DID Model" (QCU22RB04). 

Acknowledgments: I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my PhD supervisor, Haslinah Muhamad, and my co-supervisors, Ridzwana Mohd 

Said and Zaidi Mat Daud, for their invaluable guidance, encouragement, and continuous support throughout my PhD research. Their insights and expertise 
significantly contributed to the completion of this work. I also appreciate their patience and motivation, which inspired me to excel academically. 

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.                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

 

REFERENCES 

Adams, C. A. (2017). Conceptualising the contemporary corporate value creation process. Accounting, Auditing and 

Accountability Journal, 30(4), 906–931.  

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing 

Science, 16, 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327 

Bartov, E., Gul, F. A., & Tsui, J. S. (2000). Discretionary-accruals models and audit qualifications. Journal of Accounting 

and Economics, 30(3), 421–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-4101(01)00015-5 

Ben-Amar, W., & Chelli, M. (2018). What drives voluntary corporate water disclosures? The effect of country-level 

institutions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(8), 1609–1622. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2227 

Bebbington, J., Kirk, E. A., & Larrinaga, C. (2012). The production of normativity: A comparison of reporting regimes in 

Spain and the UK. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(2), 78–94. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2012.01.001 

Cubilla-Montilla, M. I., Galindo-Villardón, P., Nieto-Librero, A. B., Vicente Galindo, M. P., & García-Sánchez, I. M. 

(2020). What companies do not disclose about their environmental policy and what institutional pressures may do 

to respect. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(3), 1181–1197. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1874 

Deegan, C. (2002). Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures–a theoretical 

foundation. Accounting, auditing & accountability journal, 15(3), 282–311. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570210435852 

Di Vaio, A., Varriale, L., Di Gregorio, A., & Adomako, S. (2022). Corporate social performance and non‐financial 

reporting in the cruise industry: Paving the way towards UN Agenda 2030. Corporate Social Responsibility and 

Environmental Management, 29(6), 1931-1953. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2292 

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

Accounting Review, 31(1), 84–109. https://doi.org/10.1108/par-10-2017-0085 

Du, Y., & Wang, W. (2023). The role of green financing, agriculture development, geopolitical risk, and natural resource 

on environmental pollution in China. Resources Policy, 82, 103440. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103440 

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://doi.org/10.1515/9780691229270-

005 

Eng, L. L., & Mak, Y. T. (2003). Corporate governance and financial disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 

22(4), 325–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-4254(03)00037-1 

Edeh, F. O., Zayed, N. M., Darwish, S., Nitsenko, V., Hanechko, I., & Islam, K. M. A. (2023). Impression management 

and employee contextual performance in service organizations (enterprises). Emerging Science Journal, 7(2), 366-

384. 

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement 

error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104 

García-Sánchez, I. M., Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B., & Frias-Aceituno, J. V. (2016). Impact of the institutional macro context 

on the voluntary disclosure of CSR information. Long Range Planning, 49(1), 15-35. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2015.02.004 

García-Sánchez, I. M. (2020). Drivers of the CSR report assurance quality: Credibility and consistency for stakeholder 

engagement. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(6), 2530–2547. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1974 

Gray, S. J. (1988). Towards a theory of cultural influence on the development of accounting systems internationally. 

Abacus, 24(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6281.1988.tb00200.x 

García-Sánchez, I. M., Rodríguez-Ariza, L., & Frías-Aceituno, J. V. (2013). The cultural system and integrated reporting. 

International Business Review, 22(5), 828–838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2013.01.007 

Gallego-Álvarez, I., & Pucheta-Martínez, M. C. (2020). How cultural dimensions, legal systems, and industry affect 

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2227
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2292
https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691229270-005
https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691229270-005
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2015.02.004
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1974
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2013.01.007


Fan et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 9(5) (2024), 29-38

 

37 

environmental reporting? Empirical evidence from an international perspective. Business Strategy and the 

Environment, 29(5), 2037–2057. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2486 

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: 

Prentice Hall. 

Halkos, G., & Skouloudis, A. (2017). Revisiting the relationship between corporate social responsibility and national 

culture: A quantitative assessment. Management Decision, 55(3), 595–613. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-12-2016-

0868 

Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. 

Journal of Management and Data Systems, 116(1), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0382 

Henseler, J., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Goodness-of-fit indices for partial least squares path modelling. Computational 

Statistics, 28, 565–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00180-012-0317-1 

Hope, O. K., Kang, T., Thomas, W., & Yoo, Y. K. (2008). Culture and auditor choice: A test of the secrecy hypothesis. 

Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 27(5), 357–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2008.07.003 

Iliya Nyahas, S., Munene, J. C., Orobia, L., & Kigongo Kaawaase, T. (2017). Isomorphic influences and voluntary 

disclosure: The mediating role of organizational culture. Cogent Business & Management, 4(1), 1351144. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2017.1351144 

Kumar, K., Kumari, R., Poonia, A., & Kumar, R. (2021). Factors influencing corporate sustainability disclosure practices: 

empirical evidence from Indian National Stock Exchange. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 21(2), 

300-321. https://doi.org/10.1108/jfra-01-2021-0023 

Krasodomska, J., Simnett, R., & Street, D. L. (2021). Extended external reporting assurance: Current practices and 

challenges. Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting, 32(1), 104–142. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/jifm.12127. 

Kouloukoui, D., de Marcellis-Warin, N., Armellini, F., Warin, T., & Torres, E. A. (2021). Factors influencing the 

perception of exposure to climate risks: Evidence from the world’s largest carbon-intensive industries. Journal of 

Cleaner Production, 306, 127160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127160 

Karwowski, M., & Raulinajtys‐Grzybek, M. (2021). The application of corporate social responsibility (CSR) actions for 

mitigation of environmental, social, corporate governance (ESG) and reputational risk in integrated reports. 

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(4), 1270-1284. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2137 

Lodge, M., & Wegrich, K. (2005). Control over government: Institutional isomorphism and governance dynamics in 

German public administration. Policy Studies Journal, 33(2), 213-233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-

0072.2005.00103.x 

Latif, B., Mahmood, Z., Tze San, O., Mohd Said, R., & Bakhsh, A. (2020). Coercive, normative and mimetic pressures as 

drivers of environmental management accounting adoption. Sustainability, 12(11), 4506. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114506 

Luque-Vilchez, M., & Larrinaga, C. (2016). Reporting models do not translate well: Failing to regulate CSR reporting in 

Spain. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 36(1), 56-75 

https://doi.org/10.1080/0969160X.2016.1149301 

La Torre, M., Sabelfeld, S., Blomkvist, M., Tarquinio, L., & Dumay, J. (2018). Harmonising non-financial reporting 

regulation in Europe: Practical forces and projections for future research. Meditari Accountancy Research, 26(4), 

598-62. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-02-2018-0290 

Lakshan, A. M. I., Low, M., & de Villiers, C. (2022). Challenges of, and techniques for, materiality determination of non-

financial information used by integrated report preparers. Meditari Accountancy Research, 30(3), 626–660. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/medar-11-2020-1107 

Lee, M. J., Pak, A., & Roh, T. (2024). The interplay of institutional pressures, digitalization capability, environmental, 

social, and governance strategy, and triple bottom line performance: A moderated mediation model. Business 

Strategy and the Environment, 33(6), 5247-5268. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3755 

Liu, Z., Deng, Z., He, G., Wang, H., Zhang, X., Lin, J., Qi, Y., & Liang, X. (2022). Challenges and opportunities for carbon 

neutrality in China. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 3(2), 141-155. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-

00244-x 

Masum, M. H., Latiff, A. R. A., & Osman, M. N. H. (2020). Determinants of corporate voluntary disclosure in a transition 

economy. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 18(4), 130-141. 

https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.18(4).2020.12 

Mehedi, S., Nahar, S., & Jalaludin, D. (2024). Determinants of corporate climate change disclosure: Is the mediating role 

of corporate strategic response to environmental governance and policy matter? Evidence from emerging market. 

Sustainable Development, 32(1), 195-210. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2641 

Masoud, N., & Vij, A. (2021). Factors influencing corporate social responsibility disclosure (CSRD) by Libyan state-

owned enterprises (SOEs). Cogent Business & Management, 8(1), 1859850. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1859850 

Nicolò, G., Zanellato, G., Esposito, B., & Tiron‐Tudor, A. (2024). Cultural dimensions and sustainability disclosure in the 

banking sector: Insights from a qualitative comparative analysis approach. Business Strategy and the 

Environment. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3911 

Pizzi, S., Principale, S., Fasiello, R., & Imperiale, F. (2023). The institutionalisation of social and environmental accounting 

practices in Europe. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 24, 816–838. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-07-

https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2486
https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-12-2016-0868
https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-12-2016-0868
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00180-012-0317-1
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2008.07.003
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2017.1351144
https://doi.org/10.1111/jifm.12127
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127160
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2137
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114506
https://doi.org/10.1080/0969160X.2016.1149301
https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00244-x
https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00244-x
https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.18(4).2020.12
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1859850
https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-07-2022-0190


Fan et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 9(5) (2024), 29-38

 

38 

2022-0190 

Pizzi, S., Del Baldo, M., Caputo, F., & Venturelli, A. (2022). Voluntary disclosure of Sustainable Development Goals in 

mandatory non‐financial reports: The moderating role of cultural dimension. Journal of International Financial 

Management & Accounting, 33(1), 83-106. https://doi.org/10.1111/jifm.12139 

Pizzi, S., Rosati, F., & Venturelli, A. (2021). The determinants of business contribution to the 2030 Agenda: Introducing 

the SDG Reporting Score. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(1), 404–421. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2628 

Rashid, A., Shams, S., Bose, S., & Khan, H. (2020). CEO power and corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure: Does 

stakeholder influence matter?. Managerial Auditing Journal, 35(9), 1279–1312. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-11-

2019-2463 

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. https://doi.org/10.1108/medar-02-2022-1606 

Sra, J. K., Booth, A. L., & Cox, R. A. (2022). Voluntary carbon information disclosures, corporate-level environmental 

sustainability efforts, and market value. Green Finance, 4(2), 179–206. https://doi.org/10.3934/gf.2022009 

Sun, X., Gao, L., Ren, H., Ye, Y., Li, A., Stafford-Smith, M., Connor, J. D., Wu, J., & Bryan, B. A. (2018). China’s progress 

towards sustainable land development and ecological civilization. Landscape Ecology, 33, 1647–1653. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0706-0 

Sannino, G., Lucchese, M., Zampone, G., & Lombardi, R. (2020). Cultural dimensions, Global Reporting Initiatives 

commitment, and corporate social responsibility issues: New evidence from Organisation for Economic Co-

operation and Development banks. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(4), 

1653–1663. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1914 

Tsalis, T. A., Malamateniou, K. E., Koulouriotis, D., & Nikolaou, I. E. (2020). New challenges for corporate sustainability 

reporting: United Nations' 2030 Agenda for sustainable development and the Sustainable Development Goals. 

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(4), 1617–1629. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1910 

Tahajuddin, S., Xin, Z., Kassim, A. W. M., & Noordin, R. (2021). Social stakeholders' pressure on environmental 

accounting reporting in small and medium enterprises–evidence from China. International Journal of Research 

in Engineering, Science and Management, 4(1), 82-87. https://doi.org/10.47607/ijresm.2021.470  

Wukich, J. J., Neuman, E. L., & Fogarty, T. J. (2024). Show me? Inspire me? Make me? An institutional theory exploration 

of social and environmental reporting practices. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 20(4), 673-

701. https://doi.org/10.1108/jaoc-01-2023-0013 

Wong, K. K. K. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using 

SmartPLS. Marketing Bulletin, 24(1), 1-32. 

Yusoh, N. N. A. M., Mat, T. Z. T., & Abdullah, A. (2024). The impacts of environmental management accounting system 

(emas) adoption phases on sustainability performance: a social issue life cycle theory approach. Bangladesh 

Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research, 9(4), 25-38. https://doi.org/10.46281/bjmsr.v9i4.2245 

Zampone, G., Sannino, G., & García‐Sánchez, I. M. (2023). Exploring the moderating effects of corporate social 

responsibility performance under mimetic pressures. An international analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility 

and Environmental Management, 30(1), 53-65. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2338 

Zampone, G., García‐Sánchez, I. M., & Sannino, G. (2023). Imitation is the sincerest form of institutionalization: 

Understanding the effects of imitation and competitive pressures on the reporting of sustainable development 

goals in an international context. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(7), 4119-4142. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3357 

Zeng, S. X., Xu, X. D., Yin, H. T., & Tam, C. M. (2012). Factors that drive Chinese listed companies in voluntary disclosure 

of environmental information. Journal of Business Ethics, 109, 309-321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-

1129-x 

 
 

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

 

 

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

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

Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research (P-ISSN 2687-850X   E-ISSN 2687-8518) by CRIBFB is licensed under a Creative 

Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-07-2022-0190
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2628
https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-11-2019-2463
https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-11-2019-2463
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0706-0
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1914
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1910
https://doi.org/10.1108/jaoc-01-2023-0013
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3357
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/

