Linking environmental management accounting to environmental performance: the role of top management support and institutional pressures

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research model.

Source: Authors’ own work.

Table 1. Questionnaire distribution.

Sample size	Distributed	Suitable for analysis
282	400	299

Source: Authors’ own work.

Table 2. Sample characteristics.

Category	Frequency (%)	Category	Frequency (%)
Gender:		Position:
Male	259(86.62%)	Manager	82 (27.42%)
Female	40(13.38%)	Owner	217 (72.58%)
Experience:		Age:
1–5 years	70(23.41%)	Less than 30 years	64 (21.40%)
6–10 years	91(30.44%)	31–40 years	101 (33.78%)
11–15 years	97(32.44%)	41–50 years	85 (28.43%)
Above 15 years	41(13.71%)	Above 50 years	49 (16.39%)

Source: Authors’ analysis.

Figure 2. Measurement model.

Source: Authors’ analysis.

Figure 3. Structural model.

Source: Authors’ analysis.

Table 3. Loadings, reliability, and convergent validity.

Variables	Items code	Factor loading	α	CR	AVE
EMA	EMA1	.727	.856	.877	.702
	EMA2	.907
	EMA3	.907
	EMA4	.798
TMS	TMS1	.822	.811	.863	.709
	TMS2	.849
	TMS3	.854
IP	IP1	.867	.860	.861	.782
	IP2	.895
	IP3	.891
EP	EP1	.883	.848	.853	.766
	EP2	.883
	EP3	.860
FP	FP1	.947	.933	.948	.882
	FP2	.969
	FP3	.899

Note: AVE = average variance extracted; CR = composite reliability; α = Cronbach’s alpha; EMA = environmental management accounting; TMS = top management support; IP = institutional pressures; EP = environmental performance; FP = financial performance.

Source: Authors’ analysis.

Table 4. Discriminant validity.

Variables	EMA	TMS	IP	EP	FP
EMA
TMS	.380
IP	.091	.238
EP	.514	.343	.189
FP	.064	.242	.293	.268

Source: Authors’ analysis.

Table 5. Path coefficients (direct effects).

Path	β	t value	p-value	Confidence interval		Decision
				BCI LL	BCI UL
EMA→EP	.392	7.239	.000	0.286	0.503	H1: Supported
TMS→EP	.155	2.618	.009	0.036	0.267	H2: Supported
EMA→TMS	.346	6.184	.000	0.240	0.461	H3: Supported
EP→FP	.240	3.825	.000	0.114	0.359	H6: Supported

Source: Authors’ analysis.

Table 6. Path coefficients (moderating effect).

Path	β	t value	p-value	Confidence interval		Decision
				BCI LL	BCI UL
EMA*IP→EP	.147	2.457	.014	0.032	0.266	H1: Supported

Source: Authors’ analysis.

Table 7. Path coefficients (indirect effects).

Path	Direct path			Indirect path			Confidence interval		Decision
	β	t value	p-value	β	t value	p-value	BCI LL	BCI UL
EMA→TMS→EP	0.392	7.239	0.000	0.054	2.300	0.021	0.012	0.103	H4: Partial mediation

Source: Authors’ analysis.

Table 8. R², prediction, and effect size.

Constructs	R^2	Q^2	f^2 About
			TMS	EP	FP
EMA			0.136	0.183
IP
TMS	0.120	0.109		0.028
EP	0.279	0.233			0.354
FP	0.058	0.007

Source: Authors’ analysis.

Data availability statement

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.