Environmental social and governance (ESG) disclosure motives for environmentally sensitive industry: an emerging economy perspective

Figures & data

Table 1. Details of the keyword search and the number of records extracted from the Scopus database, based on the PRISMA Flow.

Details	Scopus
Data extracted from the database by July 2023
Keyword search: (‘ESG’ OR ‘environment* social and governance’) AND (disclosure OR reporting OR accounting) AND (motive OR driver)
Keywords searched in	‘Article title, Abstract, Keywords’
Period	All years
Filters	Language-English; Source Type-Journal; Document Types-Article or Review
Subject areas	Business Management and Accounting; Social Sciences; Economics, & Multidisciplinary
No. of records before filters were applied	55
No. of records after filters were applied	49
No. of incomplete records	1
No. of records after the data was cleaned	48

Table 2. ESG disclosure motives.

S/n	Motive	Code	References
1	Regulatory pressure	M1	Arif et al., 2021; Azimli & Cek, 2023; de la Cuesta & Valor, 2013; Hoang, 2023; Hsueh, 2017; Tomar, 2023
2	Stakeholder engagement	M2	Balogh et al., 2022; Fazzini & Dal Maso, 2016; Khemir et al., 2019; Lokuwaduge & Heenetigala, 2017; Yip & Yu, 2023; Zaid & Issa, 2023
3	Investors pressure	M3	de la Cuesta & Valor, 2013; de Vincentiis, 2023; Kimbrough et al., 2022; Parikh et al., 2023
4	Gaining legitimacy	M4	Arif et al., 2021; Fatemi et al., 2018; Garcia et al., 2017
5	Greenwashing behaviour	M5	Fatemi et al., 2018; Kim & Lyon, 2015; Wu et al., 2022; Zhang, 2022, 2023
6	Management practices	M6	Kumar & Firoz, 2022; Rezaee & Tuo, 2017
7	Expressing transparency and accountability	M7	Aboud & Diab, 2018; Chen, Liu, et al., 2023; Lueg et al., 2019
8	Communicating ESG initiatives/performance	M8	Aboud & Diab, 2018; Arif et al., 2021; Chen, Song, et al., 2023; Fatemi et al., 2018; Giannarakis et al., 2014; Rezaee & Tuo, 2017; Wang et al., 2023
9	Attracting long-term investments	M9	Amel-Zadeh & Serafeim, 2018; Balp & Strampelli, 2022; Blomqvist & Stradi, 2022; Kim et al., 2021
10	Maintaining reputation	M10	Broadstock et al., 2019; de la Cuesta & Valor, 2013; Fatemi et al., 2018
11	Ethical consideration	M11	Amel-Zadeh & Serafeim, 2018
12	Threat of punishment	M12	Hopwood, 2009; Murphy & McGrath, 2013

Figure 1. Flow chart for the fuzzy ISM approach.

Table 3. Structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM).

ESG disclosure motive	M1	M2	M3	M4	M5	M6	M7	M8	M9	M10	M11	M12
Regulatory pressure (M1)	–	O	V	O	V	O	V	V	O	V	V	V
Stakeholder engagement (M2)		–	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V	V
Investors pressure (M3)			–	O	V	V	X	X	X	X	V	V
Gaining legitimacy (M4)				–	V	X	A	X	A	X	V	V
Greenwashing behaviour (M5)					–	O	A	A	A	A	O	A
Management practices (M6)						–	V	X	X	X	V	V
Expressing transparency and accountability (M7)							–	A	V	X	V	V
Communicating ESG initiatives (M8)								–	X	X	V	V
Attracting long-term investments (M9)									–	A	V	V
Maintaining reputation (M10)										–	V	O
Ethical consideration (M11)											–	A
Threat of punishment (M12)												–

Table 4. Initial reachability matrix.

ESG disclosure motive	M1	M2	M3	M4	M5	M6	M7	M8	M9	M10	M11	M12
Regulatory pressure (M1)	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	1	0	1	1	1
Stakeholder engagement (M2)	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Investors pressure (M3)	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Gaining legitimacy (M4)	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	1	1
Greenwashing behaviour (M5)	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Management practices (M6)	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Expressing transparency and accountability (M7)	0	0	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	1	1	1
Communicating ESG initiatives (M8)	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Attracting long-term investments (M9)	0	0	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	0	1	1
Maintaining reputation (M10)	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0
Ethical consideration (M11)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0
Threat of punishment (M12)	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	1	1

Table 5. Final reachability matrix.

ESG disclosure motive	M1	M2	M3	M4	M5	M6	M7	M8	M9	M10	M11	M12	Driving power
Regulatory pressure (M1)	1	0	1	1*	1	1*	1	1	1*	1	1	1	11
Stakeholder engagement (M2)	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	11
Investors pressure (M3)	0	0	1	1*	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	10
Gaining legitimacy (M4)	0	0	1*	1	1	1	1*	1	1*	1	1	1	10
Greenwashing behaviour (M5)	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1
Management practices (M6)	0	0	1*	1	1*	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	10
Expressing transparency and accountability (M7)	0	0	1	1	1	1*	1	1*	1	1	1	1	10
Communicating ESG initiatives (M8)	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	10
Attracting long-term investments (M9)	0	0	1	1	1	1	1*	1	1	1*	1	1	10
Maintaining reputation (M10)	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1*	10
Ethical consideration (M11)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Threat of punishment (M12)	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	3
Dependence	1	1	9	9	11	9	9	9	9	9	11	10

The symbol (*) in the table represents the transitive links as explained in Step 4 of Section.

Table 6. Scheme for the degree of perceived dominance.

Dominance of interaction	No	Very low	Low	Medium	High	Very high	Full
Grade	No	NL	L	M	H	VH	F
Value on scale	0	0.1	0.3	0.5	0.7	0.9	1

Source: Abbas et al. (2022).

Table 7. Fuzzy direct reachability matrix.

ESG disclosure motive	M1	M2	M3	M4	M5	M6	M7	M8	M9	M10	M11	M12
Regulatory pressure (M1)	1	0	0.9	0.7	1	0.5	1	0.9	0.1	0.5	1	1
Stakeholder engagement (M2)	0	1	0.7	0.5	1	0.7	0.9	0.7	0.1	0.5	0.9	0.1
Investors pressure (M3)	0	0	1	0.9	0.9	0.5	0.5	0.7	0.7	0.9	0.7	0.5
Gaining legitimacy (M4)	0	0	0.7	1	0.9	0.5	0.7	0.9	0.3	0.7	0.5	0.5
Greenwashing behaviour (M5)	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Management practices (M6)	0	0	0.5	0.7	0.1	1	0.7	0.7	0.7	0.9	0.7	0.5
Expressing transparency and accountability (M7)	0	0	0.7	0.9	0.5	0.5	1	1	0.9	0.9	0.3	0.3
Communicating ESG initiatives (M8)	0	0	0.7	0.9	0.9	0.5	0.7	1	0.5	0.7	0.5	0.5
Attracting long-term investments (M9)	0	0	0.9	0.5	0.7	0.7	0.9	0.7	1	0.7	0.3	0.3
Maintaining reputation (M10)	0	0	0.7	0.9	0.9	0.7	0.9	0.9	0.7	1	0.7	0
Ethical consideration (M11)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0.5
Threat of punishment (M12)	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0.5	1

Table 8. Fuzzy direct reachability matrix with driving power and dependence.

ESG disclosure motive	M1	M2	M3	M4	M5	M6	M7	M8	M9	M10	M11	M12	Driving Power
Regulatory pressure (M1)	1	0	0.9	0.7	1	0.5	1	0.9	0.1	0.5	1	1	8.6
Stakeholder engagement (M2)	0	1	0.7	0.5	1	0.7	0.9	0.7	0.1	0.5	0.9	0.1	7.1
Investors pressure (M3)	0	0	1	0.9	0.9	0.5	0.5	0.7	0.7	0.9	0.7	0.5	7.3
Gaining legitimacy (M4)	0	0	0.7	1	0.9	0.5	0.7	0.9	0.3	0.7	0.5	0.5	6.7
Greenwashing behaviour (M5)	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1
Management practices (M6)	0	0	0.5	0.7	0.1	1	0.7	0.7	0.7	0.9	0.7	0.5	6.5
Expressing transparency and accountability (M7)	0	0	0.7	0.9	0.5	0.5	1	1	0.9	0.9	0.3	0.3	7
Communicating ESG initiatives (M8)	0	0	0.7	0.9	0.9	0.5	0.7	1	0.5	0.7	0.5	0.5	6.9
Attracting long-term investments (M9)	0	0	0.9	0.5	0.7	0.7	0.9	0.7	1	0.7	0.3	0.3	6.7
Maintaining reputation (M10)	0	0	0.7	0.9	0.9	0.7	0.9	0.9	0.7	1	0.7	0	7.4
Ethical consideration (M11)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0.5	1.5
Threat of punishment (M12)	0	0	0	0	0.5	0	0	0	0	0	0.5	1	2
Dependence	1	1	6.8	7	8.4	5.6	7.3	7.5	5	6.8	7.1	5.2

Table 9. Level partitioning.

ESG disclosure motive	Reachability set	Antecedent set	Intersection set	Level
Regulatory pressure (M1)	1	1	1	IV
Stakeholder engagement (M2)	2	2	2	IV
Investors pressure (M3)	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	III
Gaining legitimacy (M4)	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	III
Greenwashing behaviour (M5)	5	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12	5	I
Management practices (M6)	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	III
Expressing transparency and accountability (M7)	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	III
Communicating ESG initiatives (M8)	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	III
Attracting long-term investments (M9)	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	III
Maintaining reputation (M10)	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	III
Ethical consideration (M11)	11	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12	11	I
Threat of punishment (M12)	12	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12	12	II

Figure 2. FISM model symbols.

Source: Abbas et al. (2022).

Figure 3. FISM model.

Figure 4. Fuzzy MICMAC analysis.

Table

ESG disclosure motive	Reachability set	Antecedent set	Intersection set	Level
Regulatory pressure (M1)	1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12	1	1
Stakeholder engagement (M2)	2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12	2	2
Investors pressure (M3)	3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Gaining legitimacy (M4)	3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Greenwashing behaviour (M5)	5	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12	5	I
Management practices (M6)	3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Expressing transparency and accountability (M7)	3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Communicating ESG initiatives (M8)	3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Attracting long-term investments (M9)	3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Maintaining reputation (M10)	3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Ethical consideration (M11)	11	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12	11	I
Threat of punishment (M12)	5, 11, 12	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12	12

Table

ESG disclosure motive	Reachability set	Antecedent set	Intersection set	Level
Regulatory pressure (M1)	1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12	1	1
Stakeholder engagement (M2)	2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12	2	2
Investors pressure (M3)	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Gaining legitimacy (M4)	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Better management practices (M6)	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Expressing transparency and accountability (M7)	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Communicating ESG initiatives (M8)	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Attracting long-term investments (M9)	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Maintaining corporate reputation (M10)	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Threat of punishment (M12)	12	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12	12	II

Table

ESG disclosure motive	Reachability set	Antecedent set	Intersection set	Level
Regulatory pressure (M1)	1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	1	1
Stakeholder engagement (M2)	2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	2	2
Investors pressure (M3)	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	III
Gaining legitimacy (M4)	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	III
Better management practices (M6)	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	III
Expressing transparency and accountability (M7)	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	III
Communicating ESG initiatives (M8)	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	III
Attracting long-term investments (M9)	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	III
Maintaining corporate reputation (M10)	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	III

Table

ESG disclosure motive	Reachability set	Antecedent set	Intersection set	Level
Regulatory pressure (M1)	1	1	1	IV
Stakeholder engagement (M2)	2	2	2	IV

Azimli, A., & Cek, K. (2023). Can sustainability performance mitigate the negative effect of policy uncertainty on the firm valuation? Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal. Ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-09-2022-0464

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

de la Cuesta, M., & Valor, C. (2013). Evaluation of the environmental, social and governance information disclosed by Spanish listed companies. Social Responsibility Journal, 9(2), 220–240. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-08-2011-0065

 Google Scholar

Hoang, H. V. (2023). Environmental, social, and governance disclosure in response to climate policy uncertainty: Evidence from US firms. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26(2), 4293–4333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02884-5

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hsueh, L. (2017). Transnational climate governance and the global 500: Examining private actor participation by firm-level factors and dynamics. International Interactions, 43(1), 48–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050629.2016.1223929

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tomar, S. (2023). Greenhouse gas disclosure and emissions benchmarking. Journal of Accounting Research, 61(2), 451–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.12473

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fazzini, M., & Dal Maso, L. (2016). The value relevance of ‘assured’ environmental disclosure. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 7(2), 225–245. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-10-2014-0060

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Khemir, S., Baccouche, C., & Ayadi, S. D. (2019). The influence of ESG information on investment allocation decisions. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 20(4), 458–480. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-12-2017-0141

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lokuwaduge, C. S. D. S., & Heenetigala, K. (2017). Integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure for a sustainable development: An Australian study. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(4), 438–450. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1927

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yip, A. W. H., & Yu, W. Y. P. (2023). The quality of environmental KPI disclosure in ESG reporting for SMEs in Hong Kong. Sustainability, 15(4), 3634. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043634

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zaid, M. A. A., & Issa, A. (2023). A roadmap for triggering the convergence of global ESG disclosure standards: Lessons from the IFRS foundation and stakeholder engagement. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 23(7), 1648–1669. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-09-2022-0399

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

de Vincentiis, P. (2023). Do international investors care about ESG news? Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, 15(4), 572–588. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRFM-11-2021-0184

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kimbrough, M. D., Wang, X. (., Wei, S., & Zhang, J. (. (2022). Does voluntary ESG reporting resolve disagreement among ESG rating agencies? European Accounting Review, 33(1), 15–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2022.2088588

 Google Scholar

Parikh, A., Kumari, D., Johann, M., & Mladenović, D. (2023). The impact of environmental, social and governance score on shareholder wealth: A new dimension in investment philosophy. Cleaner and Responsible Consumption, 8, 100101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2023.100101

 Google Scholar

Fatemi, A., Glaum, M., & Kaiser, S. (2018). ESG performance and firm value: The moderating role of disclosure. Global Finance Journal, 38, 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfj.2017.03.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Garcia, A. S., Mendes-Da-Silva, W., & Orsato, R. J. (2017). Sensitive industries produce better ESG performance: Evidence from emerging markets. Journal of Cleaner Production, 150, 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.180

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kim, E.-H., & Lyon, T. P. (2015). Greenwash vs. Brownwash: Exaggeration and undue modesty in corporate sustainability disclosure. Organization Science, 26(3), 705–723. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0949

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wu, W., Fu, Y., Wang, Z., Liu, X., Niu, Y., Li, B., & Huang, G. Q. (2022). Consortium blockchain-enabled smart ESG reporting platform with token-based incentives for corporate crowdsensing. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 172, 108456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2022.108456

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhang, D. (2022). Are firms motivated to greenwash by financial constraints? Evidence from global firms’ data. Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting, 33(3), 459–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/jifm.12153

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhang, D. (2023). Does green finance really inhibit extreme hypocritical ESG risk? A greenwashing perspective exploration. Energy Economics, 121, 106688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106688

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kumar, P., & Firoz, M. (2022). Determinants of environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosures of top 100 Standard and Poor’s Bombay Stock Exchange firms listed in India. Sri Lanka Journal of Social Sciences, 45(1), 77. https://doi.org/10.4038/sljss.v45i1.8074

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rezaee, Z., & Tuo, L. (2017). Voluntary disclosure of non-financial information and its association with sustainability performance. Advances in Accounting, 39, 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adiac.2017.08.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Aboud, A., & Diab, A. (2018). The impact of social, environmental and corporate governance disclosures on firm value. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 8(4), 442–458. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-08-2017-0079

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chen, H., Liu, S., Yang, D., & Zhang, D. (2023). Automatic air pollution monitoring and corporate environmental disclosure: a quasi-natural experiment from China. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 14(3), 538–564. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-07-2022-0385

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lueg, K., Krastev, B., & Lueg, R. (2019). Bidirectional effects between organizational sustainability disclosure and risk. Journal of Cleaner Production, 229, 268–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.379

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chen, S., Song, Y., & Gao, P. (2023). Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance and financial outcomes: Analyzing the impact of ESG on financial performance. Journal of Environmental Management, 345, 118829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118829

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Giannarakis, G., Konteos, G., & Sariannidis, N. (2014). Financial, governance and environmental determinants of corporate social responsible disclosure. Management Decision, 52(10), 1928–1951. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2014-0296

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wang, N., Pan, H., Feng, Y., & Du, S. (2023). How do ESG practices create value for businesses? Research review and prospects. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-12-2021-0515

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Amel-Zadeh, A., & Serafeim, G. (2018). Why and how investors use ESG information: Evidence from a global survey. Financial Analysts Journal, 74(3), 87–103. https://doi.org/10.2469/faj.v74.n3.2

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Balp, G., & Strampelli, G. (2022). Institutional investor ESG engagement: The European experience. European Business Organization Law Review, 23(4), 869–904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40804-022-00266-y

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Blomqvist, A., & Stradi, F. (2022). Responsible investments: An analysis of preference – The influence of local political views on the return on ESG portfolios. The European Journal of Finance, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/1351847X.2022.2137423

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kim, E., Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2021). Do foreign investors affect carbon emission disclosure? Evidence from South Korea. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(19), 10097. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910097

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hopwood, A. G. (2009). Accounting and the environment. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(3–4), 433–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2009.03.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Murphy, D., & McGrath, D. (2013). ESG reporting – Class actions, deterrence, and avoidance. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 4(2), 216–235. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-Apr-2012-0016

 Google Scholar

Abbas, H., Asim, Z., Ahmed, Z., & Moosa, S. (2022). Exploring and establishing the barriers to sustainable humanitarian supply chains using fuzzy interpretive structural modeling and fuzzy MICMAC analysis. Social Responsibility Journal, 18(8), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-12-2020-0485

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.