Does stakeholder pressure influence firms environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure? Evidence from Ghana

Figures & data

Figure 1. Indicator reliability loading.

Table

Code	Shareholder pressure	1	2	3	4	5
SP1	Shareholder pressure significantly influences our firm’s commitment to sustainability reporting
SP2	Our sustainability disclosure aligns with the priorities and concerns expressed by our shareholders.
SP3	Shareholder pressure is a primary driver for our firm to enhance its sustainability reporting practices.
SP4	Sustainability disclosure practices are modified in response to the expectations and demands of our shareholders.
Code	Government pressure
GP1	Government pressure plays a significant role in motivating our firm to disclose its sustainability initiatives.
GP2	Our firm actively responds to government mandates and regulations by enhancing sustainability disclosure.
GP3	The influence of government pressure is evident in the comprehensive nature of our sustainability disclosure practices.
Code	Customer pressure
CP1	Customer expectations have a substantial impact on our firm’s commitment to sustainability disclosure.
CP2	Our sustainability disclosures align with the values and priorities of our customer base.
CP3	Customer pressure significantly influences the transparency and depth of our sustainability disclosure practices.
CP4	Feedback from customers regarding sustainability practices leads to continuous improvement in our disclosure strategies.
Code	Green technological innovation
GTI1	The integration of green technological innovation is crucial in satisfying shareholder expectations and promoting transparency in sustainability disclosure.
GTI2	Green technological innovation is a key enabler in responding to government pressure for enhanced sustainability disclosure in our firm.
GTI3	The adoption of green technological innovation is instrumental in meeting and exceeding customer expectations regarding sustainability disclosure.
Code	Sustainability disclosure
SD1	Our firm is committed to maintaining a high level of transparency in sustainability disclosure due to stakeholder expectations.
SD2	Our firm actively seeks ways to enhance sustainability disclosure in response to changing expectations and pressures from stakeholders.
SD3	The influence of stakeholder pressure has a measurable impact on the quality and quantity of sustainability information disclosed by our firm.
SD4	Stakeholder pressure significantly influences the strategic decisions made regarding sustainability disclosure in our firm.

Table 1. Summary of population and sample size.

Categories	Identified Firms	Declined	Incomplete	Final Sample
Manufacturing firms	304	18	7	279
Mining Firms (including quarry)	117	8	5	104
Total	421	26	12	383

Table 2. Summary of study constructs and the number of indicators.

Constructs	Number of indicators	Construct type	Measurement
Sustainability disclosure (SD)	4	Dependent	Likert scale
Shareholder pressure (SP)	4	Independent	Likert scale
Government pressure (GP)′	3	Independent	Likert scale
Customer pressure (CP)	4	Independent	Likert scale
Green technological innovation (GTI)	3	Mediating	Likert scale

Table 3. Construct reliability.

Constructs	Cronbach’s alpha	Composite reliability (rho_a)	Composite reliability (rho_c)
Consumer pressure	0.904	0.906	0.933
Government pressure	0.908	0.914	0.942
Green technological innovation	0.856	0.866	0.913
Shareholder pressure	0.874	0.880	0.914
Sustainability disclosure	0.857	0.860	0.904

Table 4. Convergent validity.

Constructs	AVE
Consumer pressure	0.778
Government pressure	0.845
Green technological innovation	0.777
Shareholder pressure	0.728
Sustainability disclosure	0.703

Table 5. Discriminant validity (Fornell and larker criterion).

Constructs	1	2	3	4	5
Consumer pressure	0.882
Government pressure	0.825	0.919
Green technological innovation	0.857	0.758	0.881
Shareholder pressure	0.847	0.852	0.817	0.853
Sustainability disclosure	0.881	0.818	0.838	0.817	0.839

Table 6. Multicollinearity statistics (inner VIF).

Constructs	CP	GP	GTI	SP	SD
CP			3.102		3.039
GP			4.227		2.227
GTI					4.237
SP			2.768		3.196
SD

Table 7. Direct relationship and indirect relationship.

Direct relationship	Path significance	T statistics	P values	95% CI UL	95% CI LL	Decisions
CP -> GTI	0.582	13.909	0.000***	0.510	0.649	Accepted
CP -> SD	0.151	5.237	0.000***	0.103	0.196	Accepted
GP -> GTI	0.007	0.184	0.854	−0.050	0.068	Denied
GP -> SD	0.417	17.164	0.000***	0.378	0.458	Accepted
GTI -> SD	0.114	4.627	0.000***	0.073	0.155	accepted
SP -> GTI	0.318	7.739	0.000***	0.250	0.386	Accepted
SP -> SD	0.340	15.182	0.000***	0.304	0.377	Accepted
Mediating analysis
GP -> GTI -> SD	0.001	0.179	0.858***	−0.006	0.008	No mediation
SP -> GTI -> SD	0.036	4.027	0.000***	0.023	0.053	Full mediation
CP -> GTI-> SD	0.067	4.267	0.000***	0.043	0.093	Full mediation

Significant at 1%.

Table 8. R-square.

Constructs	R-square	R-square adjusted
Green technological innovation	0.764	0.763
Sustainability disclosure	0.924	0.924

Table 9. Effect size.

Constructs	CP	GP	GTI	SP	SD
CP			0.350		0.054
GP			0.030		0.543
GTI					0.041
SP			0.090		0.294
SD

Data availability statement

The study relied on primary data that were collected through the administration of questionnaire from management of manufacturing businesses in Ghana.