Sustainable Futures 9 (2025) 100445

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Futures
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/sustainable-futures

Stakeholders and sustainability disclosure: Evidence from an

emerging market
Inusah Sulemana a,* , Limei Cheng b, Andrew Osei Agyemang c , Abednego Osei a ,
Timothy Masuni Nagriwum a
a
School of Finance and Economics, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, China
b
Department of Financial Management, Jiangsu University, China
c
School of Business, SDD-University of Business and Integrated Development Studies, Wa, Ghana

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study examines the relationship between stakeholders’ pressure and sustainability disclosure. This study
Stakeholders pressure used primary data from 214 participants from Ghana’s mining and manufacturing firms. SmartPLS version 4
Sustainability disclosure software was used to run the study’s analysis following the Partial Least Square Structural Equation Modeling
Green technological innovation
(PLS-SEM) approach. This study’s results revealed that pressures from stakeholders (government, shareholders,
Stakeholders’ theory
and customers) significantly influence green technological innovation and sustainability disclosure. Additionally,
Institutional theory
Organizational behavior theory green technological innovation mediates the relationships between government, shareholder, and customer
pressure and sustainability disclosure. Additionally, corporate culture partially moderates the relationships be­
tween stakeholders’ (shareholder and customer) pressure and sustainability disclosure.

1. Introduction sustainability issues [5,6,7]. The Ghana mining industry, which pri­
marily mines gold, bauxite, and manganese, contributes significantly to
In the past few years, global attention has shifted towards sustain­ deforestation and water pollution, affecting many rivers due to haz­
ability issues as nations and corporations strive to meet the objectives ardous chemicals like mercury and cyanide [8]. This has led to a defi­
outlined in Agenda 2030 and the sustainable development goals [1]. ciency in corporate social responsibility, highlighting the need for
Central to these efforts is the requirement for transparency and improved sustainability practices in these sectors. Additionally, the
accountability in sustainable practices, which are primarily accom­ manufacturing sector, which includes food processing, textiles, and
plished through sustainability disclosure. Emerging international stan­ chemicals, contributes significantly to environmental degradation in
dards, including those developed by the European Financial Reporting Ghana, accounting for 20% of the country’s carbon emissions [9]. Only
Advisory Group (EFRAG) and frameworks such as the Global Reporting 30% of industrial and mining companies adhere to environmental
Initiatives (GRI) and the Sustainable Accounting Standards Board standards, resulting in severe air and water pollution, according to the
(SASB), have played a critical role in shaping the worldwide panorama Ghanaian Ministry of Environment, Science, Technology, and Innova­
of sustainability reporting [2,3]. These trends compel companies to tion [10,11].
adapt to changing standards and effectively respond to stakeholders’ Sustainability disclosures from Ghana’s mining and industrial sectors
demands. The UN Sustainable Development Goals provide a framework have been limited and inconsistent. According to recent research by [10,
for governments and organizations to incorporate sustainability into 12], fewer than 40% of listed mining and industrial businesses publish
their strategic goals and operations, emphasizing the relevance of full sustainability reports, with the majority of reports missing detailed
environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors [4]. information on environmental management, community participation,
Ghana’s mining and manufacturing industries are crucial to Ghana’s and ethical standards. This lack of transparency not only damages these
economic growth and account for a large portion of the country’s gross firms’ reputations but also restricts stakeholders’ capacity to hold them
domestic product and employment, but they also pose significant responsible for their environmental and social duties. By focusing on

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: inusahsule45@gmail.com (I. Sulemana), chlm@ujs.edu.cn (L. Cheng), oseiandy16@yahoo.com (A.O. Agyemang), oseidegraftabednego@gmail.
com (A. Osei), nagriwumtm@gmail.com (T.M. Nagriwum).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2025.100445
Received 17 April 2023; Received in revised form 25 November 2024; Accepted 11 January 2025
Available online 13 January 2025
2666-1888/© 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
I. Sulemana et al. Sustainable Futures 9 (2025) 100445

manufacturing and mining industries, this study provides a better un­ relationship between these dynamics. It highlights how businesses use
derstanding of how increasing pressure from stakeholders such as reg­ technological innovation to meet stakeholders’ demands for sustainable
ulatory agencies, shareholders, and customers might improve practices. This novel approach uncovers the mechanisms by which
sustainability disclosure standards, fostering more corporate trans­ external demands translate into specific sustainability activities and
parency and accountability. disclosure, providing a better understanding of the paths by which
Despite the rising corpus of studies on sustainability reporting and stakeholder expectations could inspire sustainable behavior. Another
environmental management in Ghana, there are still numerous gaps in distinguishing feature of this study is its focus on corporate culture as a
the literature. Several studies concentrate on the direct influence of moderating influence. Corporate culture including values, beliefs, and
stakeholders’ pressure on sustainability disclosure which may not cap­ practices that define an organization, may have a considerable impact
ture the dynamic interaction between stakeholders’ pressure and sus­ on how a firm reacts to stakeholders demands, especially those related to
tainability disclosure and other research focuses mainly on how formal sustainability. This research offers a detailed understanding of the in­
or regulatory frameworks impact the disclosure of sustainability infor­ ternal dynamics that may strengthen or weaken the efficacy of sus­
mation [13,14]. Although these research investigations provide useful tainability initiatives by examining how corporate culture influences the
insights into the factors that drive sustainability disclosures, they often interaction between stakeholder pressure, green innovation, and sus­
overlook the multifaceted and dynamic nature of stakeholders’ influ­ tainability disclosure. These aspects collectively set this study apart from
ence in Ghana. There is little understanding of how various stakeholder other studies and provide fresh insights into the field of sustainability
groups, including local communities, non-governmental organizations, disclosure.
customers, shareholders, employees, and the media impact corpora­ The remaining section of this study is structured as: The next section
tions’ sustainability reporting practices beyond established regulatory presents the theories underpinning the study, the empirical literature
frameworks. In response to these research gaps, this research proposes review, and the hypotheses development. The methodology of the study
investigating the impact of stakeholder expectations on sustainability is presented in Section 3 whereas Section 4 comprises findings and
disclosure practices across Ghanaian firms, with a specific emphasis on discussion of the study’s results. Finally, Section 5 presents the conclu­
the mediating role of green technological innovation and the moder­ sion, policy implications, limitations, and future research direction
ating role of corporate culture. We contend that when a firm’s culture
prioritizes ethical behavior, social responsibility, and environmental 2. Literature review
stewardship, these principles become deeply embedded in the firm’s
operations and decision-making process. Consequently, sustainability 2.1. Related literature review
becomes a natural extension of the firm’s operations, leading to more
proactive and thorough sustainability disclosure. Moreover, by 2.1.1. Sustainability disclosure
combining stakeholder, institutional, and organizational theories, this Over the last two decades, sustainability disclosure has progressed
research seeks to offer a deeper comprehension of how various stake­ from a specialized practice to a standard component of corporate re­
holder groups ranging from government regulatory bodies, investors, sponsibility. At first, sustainability reporting was mostly voluntary, with
and other factors influence the sustainability reporting practices of an emphasis on philanthropic activities and ecological management
Ghanaian companies. [21]. As stakeholders became more aware of the social and ecological
This study is grounded in stakeholder, institutional, and organiza­ impact of business operations, there was a growing need for trans­
tional behavior theories. The stakeholder theory suggests that organi­ parency and comprehensive reporting. Frameworks including the GRI in
zations should serve the interests and manage good relationships with the late 1990s and the UN Global Compact in 2000 established stan­
various stakeholders who influence and are been influenced by the or­ dardized sustainability reporting criteria, driving firms to reveal their
ganizations’ activities. According to [15] companies that actively con­ sustainability practices [22]. According to [23], sustainability disclosure
nect with stakeholders foster trust and legitimacy, and these are crucial is the act of officially reporting on a firm’s performance concerning the
for the long-term success of the business. In terms of sustainability environment, society, and governance. This practice enables stake­
disclosure, stakeholder theory suggests that corporations are more likely holders to evaluate the firm’s commitment to sustainable development
to share information when they perceive high expectations or demands as well as its overall social and ecological performance. It is widely
from their stakeholders [16]. Additionally, the institutional theory perceived as an essential component of firm transparency and re­
provides a valuable perspective on sustainability disclosure practices sponsibility. Sustainability disclosure serves many purposes, including
among organizations, highlighting how rules, conventions, and managing company reputation, satisfying legal requirements, attracting
cultural-cognitive ideas shape organizational behavior. In Ghana, the investors interested in ESG factors, and responding to stakeholders’
institutional environment is influenced by regulatory frameworks, eco­ concerns [16].
nomic development strategies, and cultural values, which impact en­ Governments and regulatory agencies are increasingly requiring
terprises’ responses to stakeholder expectations, potentially affecting companies to report their sustainable practices. For instance, the Euro­
sustainability disclosure practices [16]. Moreover, according to orga­ pean, Union’s Non-Financial Reporting Directive requires major cor­
nizational behavior theory, culture shapes employees’ perceptions of porations to provide non-financial and diverse information. Such
their roles and duties [17,18]. Thus, a corporate culture that prioritizes policies seek to improve corporate transparency and accountability,
sustainability will include environmental, social, and governance prin­ encouraging firms to use sustainability reporting [24]. Various stake­
ciples in the decision-making process, communication strategies, and holders place varied degrees of pressure on companies to provide sus­
disclosure process. Drawing from this theory, employees in these kinds tainability information. Investors are incorporating ESG concerns into
of companies are more likely to view sustainability as an integral their investment decisions and demanding more transparency [25].
component of the company’s identity rather than an optional activity, Moreover, customers and communities also require firms to reveal their
directly impacting the depth and authenticity of sustainability disclo­ ecological and social consequences as part of their social corporate re­
sure. A culture of honesty promotes transparency in reporting by moti­ sponsibility (CSR) activities [26].
vating management to provide detailed and honest disclosures about
sustainable practices [19,20]. 2.2. Theoretical review
The novelty of this research stems from its dual focus on the medi­
ating and moderating role of technological innovations and corporate 2.2.1. Stakeholder theory
culture on the relationship between stakeholders’ pressure and sus­ Stakeholder theory is management and business ethics theory pro­
tainability disclosure, providing a deeper understanding of the pounded by [15], which is commonly used in studies related to

2
I. Sulemana et al. Sustainable Futures 9 (2025) 100445

corporate responsibility, environmental accounting, and sustainability citizen” to the government and the community [41]. Normative de­
disclosure. This theory posits that corporations are not only responsible mands on sustainability disclosure may originate from rules established
to their shareholders but also to a wide variety of stakeholders including by organizations GRI, the SASB, and the International Integrated
customers, employees, investors, the media, suppliers, governments, Reporting Council. Firms may voluntarily embrace these criteria to
non-governmental organizations, and the local community who influ­ comply with the industry norm, fulfill stakeholder expectations, and
ence and are been affected by the firms’ operations according to [27]. improve their image as responsible and ethical organizations.
Stakeholder theory emphasizes the significance of taking into account
multiple groups’ interests when making company decisions [28]. Sus­ 2.2.3. Organizational behavior theory
tainability disclosure, which includes reporting on ESG issues, is Organizational culture can influence how sustainability is viewed
consistent with stakeholder theory since it addresses the informational and reported and organizational behavior theory (OB) offers a frame­
demands and concerns of multiple stakeholders on a firm’s sustain­ work for comprehending these dynamics. Since the 1990s, corporate
ability policies and performance [29]. culture has begun to play an important role in organizational sustain­
[30] state that a firm’s success depends on managing good relations ability studies. Organizational behavior (OB) theory suggests that
with various stakeholders. As a consequence, corporations disclose companies must have the best organizational culture to successfully
sustainability data to manage their relationships with various stake­ respond to social and environmental concerns, as traditional corporate
holders to maintain or improve their legitimacy to operate. Firms that culture focuses solely on profit [17]. To achieve a successful transition,
are transparent regarding their sustainability efforts are more likely to organizations must foster a sustainable corporate culture while
be perceived as socially responsible, which may help them improve their achieving corporate sustainability [42]. A sustainable organizational
brand image, and attract environmentally conscious consumers and culture that values such as social and environmental responsibility,
investors [31]. Additionally, by providing data on sustainability, firms innovative culture, and sustainability leadership teams may enable firms
can establish trust and credibility with stakeholders by demonstrating to improve ESG performance [43].
their dedication to responsible management and ethical practices. According to OB theory, culture shapes employees’ perceptions of
their roles and duties [18]. A culture that prioritizes sustainability will
2.2.2. Institutional theory include these principles in the decision-making process, communication
Institutional theory focuses on how structures like rules, norms, and strategies, and disclosure procedures. Drawing from this theory, em­
routines are established as authoritative standards for social behavior, ployees in these kinds of companies are more likely to view sustain­
with a particular emphasis on resilient aspects of social structure. The ability as an integral component of the company’s identity rather than
institutional environment, including formal and informal rules, cultural an optional activity, which has a direct impact on the depth and
norms, beliefs, and regulations, influences organizations to comply with authenticity of sustainability disclosure. A culture of openness promotes
these pressures for legitimacy, survival, and stability [32,33]. transparency in reporting by motivating management to provide
The institutional theory addresses why managers disclose social and detailed and honest disclosures about sustainable practices [19,20]. In
ecological information via two dimensions known as isomorphism and contrast, a hierarchical culture may result in more guarded, restricted
decoupling. Isomorphism refers to how corporations absorb institutional disclosures due to concerns about compliance, risk, and maintaining
practices, such as sustainability practices, from other organizations control over external communication.
[33]. According to [34], revealing social and ecological information is A sustainable leadership culture supports systematic innovations,
an institutional practice, and how an organization adapts and changes which result in creating quality products, services, and solutions to
its reporting practices is known as the isomorphism process. This achieve a balance between people, profits, and the environment and to
isomorphism process is influenced by stakeholder and institutional improve the company’s sustainability through corresponding manage­
forces, as well as experts’ desires. [35] have identified three forms: co­ ment practices [17]. Additionally, based on OB theory leadership styles
ercive, mimetic, and normative. also impact sustainability disclosure. This theory suggests that a trans­
Coercive isomorphism occurs when organizations face formal and formational leader who believes in sustainability communicates the
informal influences from other organizations and cultural norms within significance of sustainability in the company fostering a culture in which
their community [35]. Under coercive isomorphism, stakeholders’ sustainability is integrated into the company’s principles, resulting in
power influences a firm’s adoption of institutional practices like sus­ more extensive and proactive sustainability disclosures [44].
tainability disclosure practices to align with other firms operating in the
same industry. Coercive demands in sustainability disclosure sometimes 2.3. Empirical literature and hypotheses development
stem from legislation and regulations mandating corporations to report
on their ESG activities [36]. In this regard, the European Union’s 2.3.1. Government pressure, green technological innovation, and
Non-Financial Reporting Directive mandates major corporations to sustainability disclosure
report non-financial information, such as ecological and social impacts. A wide range of stakeholders including the general public, suppliers,
Firms follow these standards to avoid legal fines, ensure access to cap­ environmental organizations, and local communities all play important
ital, and preserve their credibility in the eyes of stakeholders. roles in shaping corporate sustainability practices [45]. However, in this
Mimetic isomorphism arises when companies’ mimic rivals’ behav­ study, numerous significant factors influenced the choice to focus on the
iors. Firms may emulate successful rivals’ tactics to reproduce their government, customers, and shareholders. Initially, in the context of our
success [37]. Mimetic processes occur not just between sectors but also research, these three stakeholder groups were recognized as having the
inside organizations. Sustainability disclosure firms may replicate the most immediate and direct impact on sustainability disclosures in the
reporting practices of industry leaders or rivals to obtain trust and industries investigated [46]. Shareholders increasingly demand trans­
credibility in sustainability [38]. This imitation is often motivated by parency in sustainability reporting as part of their overall interest in
ambiguity regarding the most successful practices for sustainability long-term business value, especially in light of growing concerns about
reporting, which leads organizations to emulate the example established ESG factors. Governments, particularly in emerging economies, are
by their peers or industry [39]. important drivers of sustainability disclosures via legal frameworks that
Normative isomorphism refers to pressure on social organizations mandate sustainability disclosure, and customers, especially in in­
including business groups, non-governmental organizations, and the dustries with high consumer engagement, frequently pressure com­
media [40]. The sustainability disclosure project, an international panies to publish sustainability data, driven by a growing desire for
corporate alliance, raises awareness in many nations and sectors [29]. ethical and ecologically responsible products. Moreover, drawing from
Firms utilize sustainability reports to present themselves as "good the stakeholders’ saliency theory the government, shareholders, and

3
I. Sulemana et al. Sustainable Futures 9 (2025) 100445

customers are the most powerful stakeholders and may significantly 2.3.3. Customer pressure, green technological innovation, and
shape corporate behavior or decision-making [35], especially those sustainability disclosure
decisions related to ESG. Prior research revealed that these stakeholder Customers are crucial and powerful stakeholders according to the
groups significantly impact corporate social and environmental perfor­ concept of stakeholder salience theory who can influence corporate
mance [34,47]. decisions through their purchasing power and preferences. Customer
According to the stakeholder theory firms should create value for all pressure has become a crucial driver of corporate behavior, notably in
stakeholders including the government [15], balance their interests terms of sustainability practices and the sharing of sustainability-related
[27], and manage good relationships to survive and be successful. data. Customers in an increasingly ecologically concerned and socially
Consequently, to manage relationships with these stakeholders to ach­ aware marketplace expect firms to be ethically responsible by producing
ieve legitimacy firms adopt innovative strategies and disseminate sus­ products that are ecologically friendly and disclosing information
tainability information to meet the expectations of these stakeholders. regarding their ESG performance [57]. Firms that face significant levels
The government as a key stakeholder may establish obligatory sustain­ of consumer pressure are more inclined to implement innovative ini­
ability reporting standards, and these regulations may mandate com­ tiatives and publish their ecological performance in response to
panies to publish information about ecological, social, and employee customer demand for transparency [58]. When consumers express a
concerns, as well as human rights, anti-corruption, and bribery issues. desire for ecologically friendly products or exhibit concern about firms’
Regulatory frameworks, which include emission standards, pollution ecological practices, it creates a sort of pressure that may motivate firms
control, and ecological levies, compel firms to develop and adopt to pursue green technology innovation to meet their product expecta­
innovative technologies that reduce adverse environmental effects. Ac­ tions. As stated by [59], consumer demand is a significant element
cording to [48], strict environmental restrictions may encourage inno­ driving firms to innovate in a manner that enhances environmental
vation by establishing a framework within which firms must operate. performance and increases overall efficiency and competitive advan­
[49] study results show that formal and informal ecological standards tage. [60] research indicates that pressure from customers has a sub­
have a favorable and substantial impact on eco-innovation. In terms of stantial impact on green innovation performance. In a similar vein, [61]
disclosure, empirical research by [50] revealed that the government’s study supported the important role that pressure from customers plays
environmental attention improves firms’ ESG performance. Similarly, in executing green innovation through green thinking and creativity.
[34] discovered that pressure from the government significantly in­
H3a. Customer pressure significantly influences green technological
fluences a firm’s ESG performance. Also, the results of a study prove that
innovation.
pressure from the government influences the disclosure of sustainability
reports [51]
H3b. Customer pressure significantly influences sustainability disclosure.
H1a. Government pressure significantly influences green technological
innovation. 2.3.4. Green technological innovation and sustainability disclosure
According to the stakeholder theory companies are not just respon­
H1b. Government pressure significantly influences sustainability sible to their shareholders but to different stakeholders’ groups [35].
disclosure. This theory suggests that companies should consider the various needs
of stakeholders including those related to environmental disclosure. To
2.3.2. Shareholder pressure, green technological innovation, and achieve this purpose, companies implement green technological in­
sustainability disclosure novations to improve their environmental performance and address the
According to the stakeholder salience theory, shareholders are sustainability information disclosure needs of stakeholders. These in­
powerful stakeholders who can influence firm decision-making. Share­ novations enable companies to address the expectations and needs of
holders as powerful stakeholders may exert significant influence on different stakeholder groups by providing transparent, and compre­
firms to adopt green technological innovation and disclose their sus­ hensive disclosures that indicate environmental responsibility, regula­
tainability information [52]. Shareholder activism is an important factor tory compliance, and a commitment to long-term sustainability [62]
in deriving ESG disclosure and the implantation of green initiatives. Green technological innovations provide concrete evidence of a
Shareholders, especially activist investors, are increasingly using their company’s dedication to sustainability, making it easier for firms to
power to demand more comprehensive and transparent reporting. [53] provide and disclose detailed environmental data. Firms that implement
state that shareholder advocacy on ecological and social concerns can green technologies often communicate their efforts to improve their
significantly enhance a firm’s green innovation practices and disclosure brand and fulfill stakeholders’ needs [63]. Green technological inno­
of sustainable information. Companies targeted by activist shareholders vation is related to higher sustainability performance and companies
are more likely to improve their sustainable development practices and that invest in green technological innovation report considerable de­
disclosure in response to investors’ pressure. [54] found that multiple creases in pollution and energy consumption, which is consistent with
major stakeholders improve green innovation by alleviating the swings the concepts of sustainable development [56]. Organizations that
in the cash flow of the firm. Recent research found that shareholder implement green innovation are likely to meet environmental standards
pressure positively and significantly influences ESG disclosure [34]. and lower operational risk [56,64]. This in turn improves the level of
Firms that voluntarily reveal climate change risks following ecological sustainability disclosure. Green technological innovation promotes
shareholder activism receive a better post-disclosure valuation, voluntary sustainability disclosure, particularly in industries with high
implying that investors value values transparency about firms’ exposure environmental effects, like manufacturing and energy [65]. Firms in
to climate change risks [55]. [56] research also indicates that share­ these sectors often utilize sustainability disclosure as a means of
holders’ pressure significantly influences environmental information conveying their environmental initiatives and innovation. Technolog­
disclosure. ical innovations such as environmental management systems
Technological innovations, such as digital platforms, have also had a
H2a. Shareholder pressure significantly influences green technological
significant impact on sustainability disclosure [66]. With the advent of
innovation.
digital tools and sustainability software, firms can now automate the
businesses’ gathering and reporting of sustainability data, lowering the
H2b. Shareholder pressure significantly influences sustainability
possibility of human errors and boosting transparency [67]. [68] argue
disclosure.
that digital platforms improve accountability by making sustainability
information more available to stakeholders. Additionally, these systems

4
I. Sulemana et al. Sustainable Futures 9 (2025) 100445

allow firms to update their disclosure more regularly, ensuring that the innovation entails creating and implementing new technologies or
information is still relevant and indicative of their current practices. practices that decrease environmental impact while promoting sus­
According to [69], social media reporting may supplement traditional tainability [34]. Green technical innovation is a strategic response to
reporting. The research found that conventional forms of environmental stakeholder demands, aiming to reduce ecological risk, save costs, and
disclosure were ineffective, but social media reporting performed the enhance the sustainability reputation of the firms. Companies that adopt
best. green technologies address environmental impact concerns and
demonstrate a proactive approach to sustainability, communicated
H4. Green Technological Innovation Influence Sustainability Disclosure.
through sustainability disclosure [75]. Green technological innovation
enhances sustainability disclosure credibility and legitimacy by enabling
2.3.5. The moderating role of corporate culture
companies to provide comprehensive and accurate data about their
According to organizational behavior theory, corporate culture
sustainability activities, fostering stakeholder confidence and strength­
shapes how firms understand and respond to external pressures [70]. A
ening their commitment to sustainability [76].
robust, beneficial culture may encourage proactive behavior, like
Although green technological innovations are critical to enhancing
enhanced sustainability disclosure. Corporate culture is a set of common
ecological performance and reporting, innovation in sustainability
values, beliefs, and behaviors within corporate organizations. These sets
reporting also includes changes in how information is conveyed and
of shared values, attitudes, and behaviors can impact how a firm un­
distributed to stakeholders [77]. Technological innovations such as
derstands and responds to stakeholders’ sustainability needs [71]. Firms
digital platforms, and social media marked a significant move in sus­
with a strong corporate culture that integrates transparency and
tainability communication tactics. Social media platforms enable busi­
accountability tend to have a stronger desire for sustainable perfor­
nesses to communicate sustainability information in a more transparent
mance and disclosure [72]. Such firms perceive stakeholder pressure as
and accessible manner [77]. As conventional reporting methods, which
an opportunity to build trust and long-term relationships, leading to
may include lengthy and technical reports, social media can provide
increased transparency and receptiveness to stakeholders’ requests for
brief, timely updates that are easily digestible for a larger audience. This
sustainability information disclosure. According to [30], a corporate
transparency fosters trust and may dramatically improve an entity’s
culture that values innovation and market leadership can enhance sus­
reputation with customers and other stakeholders. Digital reporting
tainability disclosure in response to stakeholder pressure. Firms with
innovations make it possible to provide real-time information on sus­
this culture may see stakeholder pressure as an opportunity to innovate
tainability efforts and performance, enabling effective stakeholder
sustainable practices and create new industry norms, leading to more
management and timely response to emerging issues, thereby main­
detailed and forward-thinking disclosures. A proactive corporate culture
taining a proactive business image [78]. [79] highlight the benefits of
can influence a firm’s responsiveness to stakeholders’ expectations by
integrated data technologies in sustainability reporting. For instance,
promoting activities that go beyond basic compliance and actively
Extract Transform Load (ETL) systems and data warehousing solutions
engaging stakeholders. A study conducted by [71] results demonstrated
enable firms to consolidate data from multiple sources into a single
that corporate culture substantially influences firms’ sustainability.
platform, ensuring comprehensive and accurate sustainability reports.
Moreover, [72] study results revealed that corporate culture signifi­
Empirical research demonstrated that innovation performance mediates
cantly influences ESG outcomes. In a similar vein, a recent research
the relationships between ESG performance and corporate sustainability
conducted by [17], found that cultural norms of innovation, quality and
performance [80]. In a similar vein, [81] research revealed that green
teamwork, and technological-oriented corporate culture have a signifi­
innovation mediates the relationship between digital transformation
cant influence on ecological performance.
and a firm’s ESG performance.
H5. Corporate culture moderates the relationship between government
H8. The relationship between government pressure and sustainability
pressure and sustainability disclosure.
disclosure is mediated by GTI
H6. Corporate culture moderates the relationship between shareholder
H9. The relationship between shareholders’ pressure and sustainability
pressure and sustainability disclosure.
disclosure is mediated by GTI
H7. Corporate culture moderates the relationship between customer pres­
H10. The relationship between customer pressure and sustainability
sure and sustainability disclosure.
disclosure is mediated by GTI
2.3.6. The mediating role of green technological innovation
2.3.7. Summary of the study hypothesis
Based on the institutional theory, companies are significantly influ­
Table 1 consists of the summary of the study’s hypotheses developed
enced by the external environment in which they operate including
based on the relevant literature and theories underpinning the study.
formal and informal norms and expectations that shape the behavior of
companies [34]. These pressures arise from various institutional forces
3. Methodology
like social norms, regulatory agencies, cultural expectations, and social
norms. As companies seek credibility and survival, they tend to comply
3.1. Research design
with institutional pressures by implementing sustainable business
practices, green technological innovations, and disclosure structures
This study employs a quantitative approach to construct and explain
deemed appropriate and essential by stakeholders. Government policies
the conceptual framework, drawing on stakeholder and institutional
and regulatory frameworks mandate companies to minimize the
theory. The hypothesis for this research is to investigate and validate the
ecological impact by complying with emission standards, adopting
influence of stakeholder pressure on sustainability disclosure. To ensure
green technologies innovations, and meeting sustainability re­
that the data for this study came from reliable sources, we used a pur­
quirements [73,74]. As a result, companies align their practices with
posive sampling strategy. In addition, data is collected via a Google form
these regulations to avoid legal sanctions, penalties, or reputational
questionnaire.
damage. According to [34] companies adopt technological innovations,
The survey was designed to collect information from managers
and disclose sustainability information, to align with industry norms and
responsible for compiling yearly sustainability reports for Ghanaian
to maintain legitimacy within their sector.
industrial enterprises. Using firsthand data with no human intervention
Green technological innovation has gained prominence as a crucial
increases its reliability, accuracy, and significance for the research
component of business sustainability initiatives. Green technological

5
I. Sulemana et al. Sustainable Futures 9 (2025) 100445

Table 1 3.2.2.3. Customer pressure. refers to the pressure that customers exert
Summary of the research hypothesis. on businesses to implement environmentally friendly policies and
Hypothesis Relationships enhance their sustainability disclosure [58]. The measures used to
quantify consumer pressure were modified from research by [60]. The
H1a. Government pressure significantly influences green technological
innovation. scale comprises consumer comments and complaints, as well as envi­
H1b. Government pressure significantly influences sustainability disclosure. ronmental accounting disclosure requests from customers.
H2a. Shareholder pressure significantly influences green technological
innovation. 3.2.3. Mediating constructs
H2b. Shareholder pressure significantly influences sustainability disclosure.
H3a. Customer pressure significantly influences green technological
innovation. 3.2.3.1. Green technological innovation. is the creation and imple­
H3b. Customer pressure significantly influences sustainability disclosure. mentation of novel innovations, procedures products that minimize the
H4. Green Technological Innovation Influence Sustainability Disclosure. ecological impact and promote sustainability [88]. Technological in­
H5. Corporate culture moderates the relationship between government
pressure and sustainability disclosure.
novations, such as digital platforms, have significantly impacted sus­
H6. Corporate culture moderates the relationship between shareholder tainability disclosure by automating data collection and reporting.
pressure and sustainability disclosure. These digital tools and eco-friendly software reduce human error, pro­
H7. Corporate culture moderates the relationship between customer mote transparency, and enable more accurate and trustworthy sustain­
pressure and sustainability disclosure.
ability disclosures, thereby enhancing business performance. We used
H8. The relationship between government pressure and sustainability
disclosure is mediated by GTI. instruments adapted from a study such as [80,89,90] to assess green
H9. The relationship between shareholders’ pressure and sustainability technological innovation.
disclosure is mediated by GTI.
H10. The relationship between customer pressure and sustainability 3.2.4. Moderating construct
disclosure is mediated by GTI.

3.2.4.1. Corporate culture. refers to a company’s common values, be­

question [34]. The information obtained and analyzed is used to assess liefs, behaviors, and practices that influence how its workers interact
the effect of stakeholder demands on sustainability disclosure. For the with one another and with external stakeholders [91]. it includes the
predictor constructs and the dependent construct, managers’ views were company’s conventions, customs, and the entire environment, all of
assessed using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly disagree (1) which impact decision-making, employee behavior, and business prac­
to strongly agree (5)". tices. To assess corporate culture, we employed modified instruments
We sent three hundred (300) questionnaires to the various mining from a study [72]. The indicators used to measure the latent constructs
and industrial firms. Two hundred and fourteen (214) responses were are provided in Appendix A. Table 2 presents a summary of the research
obtained from the 300 questionnaires distributed and included in the constructs.
study analysis. SmartPLS 4.0 was used to verify and assess the premises,
followed by Partial Least Square Structural Equation Modelling (PLS- 4. Results and discussion
SEM). Given that model coefficients are determined using the variances
and covariance of the variables [82]. Furthermore, the PLS-SEM tech­ 4.1. Measurement model
nique is particularly well-suited to this model since it enables the
investigation of complex structural relationships across components, as 4.1.1. Indicator reliability loadings
well as the examination of mediating and moderating connections [83]. The assessment of a reflective measurement model entails deter­
mining indicator loadings. A loading of 0.708 or above is suggested to
3.2. Definition and constructs measurement guarantee credibility and reliability, suggesting that constructs or latent
variables account for more than half of the variance in the indicators
3.2.1. Dependent construct [92]. All indicators had loading values of more than 0.708, suggesting
that they are excellent measures of latent variables or that the items are
3.2.1.1. Sustainability disclosure. is the act of revealing an organiza­ dependable [80], as illustrated in Fig. 1.
tion’s ESG objectives and progress. It enables businesses to communicate
information about their impact and practices with stakeholders like 4.1.2. Internal consistency reliability
customers, investors, and employees [84]. Modified instruments from a Internal consistency dependability is an important consideration
study by [85] were used to quantify sustainability disclosure. when assessing the accuracy of measurements in a reflected measure­
ment model. Cronbach’s and composite reliability values of 0.70 or
3.2.2. Independent constructs more are often needed for internal consistency dependability [92,93].
Table 3 shows the internal consistency reliability results.
3.2.2.1. Government pressure. encompasses rules and regulations, pol­ Based on the findings in Table 3, all of the constructs’ Cronbach’s
icies, and incentives imposed by governments to encourage businesses alpha and composite reliability scores were above the recommended
to disclose their environmental performance efforts [86]. To assess level of 0.70, indicating that internal consistency reliability is met.
government pressure, we used a modified measure [60]. The scale in­
cludes government advocacy for sustainability disclosure, administra­
tive punishments, and the enforcement of ecological disclosure rules. Table 2
Summary of the study’s constructs.
3.2.2.2. Shareholder pressure. refers to shareholders’ requirements and Construct Category Construct Notation Measurement
wants for companies to follow environmentally friendly standards and Dependent Construct Sustainability Disclosure SusD
openly disclose their environmental effects [87]. To quantify share­ Government Pressure GovP
Independent
holder pressure, we use a scale created by [34], which includes elements Constructs
Shareholder Pressure ShaP
Customer Pressure CusP Likert Scale
such as shareholder demands for particular environmental disclosure
Mediating Construct Green Technological GTI
and the number of ecological resolutions submitted. Innovation
Moderating Construct Corporate Culture CorC

6
I. Sulemana et al. Sustainable Futures 9 (2025) 100445

Fig. 1. Indicators reliability loadings.

4.1.4. Discriminant Validity (Fornell and Larcker Criterion)

Table 3
Discriminant validity relates to how much one concept genuinely
Internal consistency reliability results.
varies from another in terms of empirical criteria. We evaluated
Constructs Cronbach’s Composite Composite discriminant validity using the Fornell and Larcker Criterion, which is
alpha Reliability (Rho- Reliability (Rho-
the most extensively used technique [94]. According to this criterion,
A) C)
the square root of the AVE should be larger than the inter-construct
Corporate Culture 0.897 0.898 0.929 correlation [95]. Thus, the AVE of each latent construct must be
Customer Pressure 0.885 0.895 0.915
Government Pressure 0.890 0.897 0.919
bigger than their square relationship with one another. Table 5 shows
Green Technological 0.729 0.829 0.898 the data for discriminant validity.
Innovation Table 5 shows that all of the factors have a higher AVE with their
Shareholder Pressure 0.910 0.921 0.933 designated indicators compared to their inter-construct associations in
Sustainability 0.884 0.893 0.920
both rows and columns, demonstrating that discriminant validity has
Disclosure
been established.

4.1.3. Convergent validity

Convergent validity assesses how well a construct converges to 4.2. Structural model
explain the variance in its indicators. To test convergent reliability, re­
searchers use the average variance extracted (AVE), with a minimum 4.2.1. Path significance analysis
acceptable AVE of 0.50 showing that the constructs account for 50% of To test the theories, the researchers utilized the PLS-SEM technique
the indicator’s variation [34,92]. Table 4 shows the data for convergent with bootstrapping (@5000 subsample), a well-known multivariate
validity. statistical tool for assessing the relationship between latent components
According to the data in Table 4, all constructs have an AVE larger [80]. The PLS-SEM is effective for both intricate and basic models [34],
than the minimal criterion of 0.50, indicating convergent validity.
Table 5
Discriminant validity results.
1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Corporate Culture 0.875 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Table 4 2. Customer Pressure 0.790 0.827 ​ ​ ​ ​
Convergent validity results. 3. Government 0.840 0.626 0.834 ​ ​ ​
Pressure
Constructs AVE
4. Green 0.861 0.636 0.705 0.863 ​ ​
Corporate Culture 0.765 Technological
Customer Pressure 0.683 Innovation
Government Pressure 0.695 5. Shareholder 0.836 0.635 0.816 0.812 0.878 ​
Green Technological Innovation 0.745 Pressure
Shareholder Pressure 0.771 6. Sustainability 0.841 0.696 0.808 0.804 0.808 0.867
Sustainability Disclosure 0.751 Disclosure

7
I. Sulemana et al. Sustainable Futures 9 (2025) 100445

and the results include pathways, beta values (coefficients), t-statistics, positive culture prioritizing sustainability and ethical conduct are more
and p-values. Table 6 shows the results of the path significance analysis. likely to meet shareholder expectations for sustainability disclosure. On
From the path significance results in Table 6, the results revealed that the other hand, corporate culture does not moderate the relationship
government pressure significantly influences green technological inno­ between government pressure and sustainability disclosure. This result
vation and sustainability information disclosure with coefficients (beta), rejects H5. This means that the association between government policies
t-statistics, and p-values of (β= 0.434, t statistic= 5.080, p-value= or regulatory standards is not influenced by corporate culture. This is
0.000) and (β= 0.185, t statistic= 1.988, p-value= 0.006) validating because government pressure typically entails legally binding regula­
H1a and H1b respectively. This shows that legal structures and gov­ tions that oblige firms to act, regardless of their culture. Therefore, we
ernment initiatives play an important role in encouraging firms to adopt conclude that corporate culture partially mediates the relationship be­
green technologies and publish sustainability data. Governments may tween stakeholders’ pressure and sustainability disclosure.
successfully promote ecological sustainability by enacting and imple­ Finally, green technological innovation mediates the relationships
menting policies that mandate or encourage innovative green technol­ between stakeholders (government, shareholders, and customers)
ogies and open sustainable reporting. pressure, and sustainability disclosure validating H8, H9, and H10. This
Moreover, the results revealed that pressure from shareholders has a means that organizations can provide sustainability reports that are both
significant impact on green technological innovation (β= 4.493, t comprehensive and precise when they are actively involved in techno­
statistic= 4.308, p-value= 0.106) validating H2a. Also, shareholder logical innovations. This enhances the credibility of their disclosures.
pressure has an affirmative and substantial influence on sustainability Companies can improve their ecological reporting by committing to
reporting. This result confirms H2b with coefficients (beta), t-statistics, technological innovation. Firms who do this not only conform with
and p-values of (β= 0.194, t statistic= 3.204, p-value= 0.002) accord­ stakeholder requirements, but additionally they position themselves as
ingly. This implies that stockholders play an important role in pushing sustainability leaders, potentially improving their brand image and
organizational ecological and sustainable development initiatives. competitive advantage.
Shareholders increasingly perceive sustainable development as an
essential element in value creation and risk management, instead of 4.2.2. Goodness of fit (GOF)
merely a compliance or reputational concern. The R-squared (R2) method is the most frequently employed crite­
Furthermore, customer pressure demonstrated a positive and sig­ rion for evaluating GOF. According to [96], R2 measures a model’s
nificant influence on green technological implantation and sustainabil­ explanatory strength. R2 values vary from 0 to 1, suggesting increased
ity disclosure per the path significant analysis in Table 5 with explanatory power. R2 values of 0.25, 0.50, and 0.75 are considered
coefficients (beta), t-statistics, and p-values of (β= 0.053, t statistic= weak, moderate, and considerable, respectively [34]. Table 7 shows the
1.963, p-value= 0.016) and (β= 0.168, t statistic= 2.475, p-value= latent variable’s predictive power and how well the explanatory vari­
0.004) in order. This implies that customers’ power impacts firms’ ables explain the model’s result.
strategic decisions, particularly regarding ecological behavior and Table 7 shows that the dependent variable, Sustainability disclosure,
accountability. Customers are concerned not only about the products or had an R2 value of 0.765, whereas the mediating variable, green tech­
services they purchase but also about the ecological impacts of the firms nological innovation, had an R2 of 0.872. The R2 values are substantial,
they support. suggesting that the model best fits the investigation.
Additionally, according to the results in Table 6 green technological
innovation significantly impacts firms’ sustainability disclosure. This 4.3. Discussion
outcome validates H4. This means that the adoption of greener tech­
nologies and other technological innovations such as digital platforms The institutional theory holds that government directives and legis­
and media platforms improves a firm’s sustainability performance and lation, among other institutional norms and conventions, have an
capacity to report on sustainable initiatives. These innovations simplify impact on company activities. Companies adopt technological in­
the gathering, analysis, and sharing of sustainability data, allowing firms novations and provide their sustainability reports to comply with
to give more extensive and accurate disclosures.
In regards to moderating impact, the path significance results Table 7
showed that corporate culture significantly and positively moderates the R-square results.
relationships between shareholders’ and customers’ pressure and sus­
Constructs R-square R-Square Adjusted
tainability disclosure validating H6 and H7. This means that corporate
culture strengthens the relationship between shareholders’ and cus­ Green Technological Innovation 0.872 0.867
Sustainability Disclosure 0.765 0.741
tomers’ pressure and sustainability disclosure. Firms with a strong,

Table 6
Path significance results.
Hypotheses Relationships Coefficients T-statistics P-values 95% CI LL 95% CI UL Decision

H1a. GovP -> GTI 0.434 5.080 0.000 0.285 0.565 Accepted
H1b. GovP -> SusD 0.185 1.988 0.006 0.102 0.457 Accepted
H2a. ShaP -> GTI 0.493 4.308 0.106 0.365 0.619 Accepted
H2b. ShaP -> SusD 0.194 3.204 0.002 0.100 0.471 Accepted
H3a. CusP -> GTI 0.053 1.963 0.016 0.027 0.129 Accepted
H3b. CusP -> SusD 0.168 2.475 0.004 0.105 0.364 Accepted
H4. GTI -> SusD 0.016 1.968 0.020 0.161 0.585 Accepted
Moderating
H5. CorC x GovP -> SusD -0.267 1.445 0.149 -0.549 0.040 Denied
H6. CorC x ShaP -> SusD 0.188 2.445 0.001 0.094 0.480 Accepted
H7. CorC x CusP-> SusD 0.029 1.973 0.016 0.013 0.122 Accepted
Mediating
H8. GovP -> GTI -> SusD 0.107 0.084 0.933 0.101 0.159 Accepted
H9. ShaP -> GTI -> SusD 0.028 0.084 0.933 0.012 0.188 Accepted
H10. CusP -> GTI -> SusD 0.093 0.062 0.950 0.015 0.033 Accepted

8
I. Sulemana et al. Sustainable Futures 9 (2025) 100445

regulatory requirements to collaborate with these pressures, evade and negotiate favorable terms with investors, so improving a company’s
penalties, and demonstrate credibility. Initially, we proposed govern­ financial health, cutting capital expenditures, and boosting access to
ment pressure significantly influences green technological innovation finance. As a consequence, companies now prioritize sustainability and
(H,1, a), and secondly, we postulated that government pressure had a disclose environmental initiatives in their annual reports to attract and
favorable and significant impact on sustainability disclosure (H,1,b). keep environmentally concerned investors while staying competitive in
The study’s results in Table 6 demonstrated that government pressure the global market. This conclusion supports the contention that share­
significantly influences companies’ implementation of green techno­ holders, particularly those focused on sustainability and responsible
logical innovation. This is because companies are compelled to adopt investing, put pressure on corporations to enhance openness about their
and use technological innovations and abide by government and regu­ environmental policies. Furthermore, our findings are consistent with
latory agency policies such as carbon emission reduction rules and [63] research finding that shareholder pressure encourages corporate
sustainability disclosure standards to avoid legal sanctions, penalties, environmental information sharing.
and the company’s reputational damage. This finding collaborates with According to the stakeholder theory, consumers, who are essential
the institutional theory and regulatory push model in management in­ stakeholders, have the potential to influence the sustainability practices
novations which suggest that external pressure such as regulations and of firms using their purchasing decisions and their predilection for
policies compel companies to adopt and use technologies to address ecologically responsible products and services. [98] assert that firms
emissions and disclose sustainability information. Our finding is with a strong level of customer loyalty may attempt to improve their
consistent with the results of research conducted by [97] which revealed reputation by increasing the transparency of their reports. Hence, we
that stakeholders’ pressure promotes environmental ethics and green hypothesized that customer pressure has a positive and significant
innovation. Additionally, the path significance analysis findings in impact on green technological innovation (H,3,a). Also, we assumed
Table 6 showed that government pressure has a positive and significant that customers’ pressure positively and significantly influences sus­
impact on sustainability disclosure, verifying H1b. Managers of firms tainability disclosure(H,3,b). The results in Table 6 showed that cus­
are concerned about penalties, legal obligations, and reputational harm tomers’ pressure positively and significantly influences firms’ adoption
that may arise as a result of a breach of government rules and policies of green technological innovations. This is because customer awareness
intended to solve social and environmental challenges. Hence, firms are of environmental sustainability and demand for ecological-friendly
putting green initiatives into place and disclosing them in their annual products and services has placed significant pressure on companies to
reports to prevent litigation and reputational harm while also ensuring adopt green technological innovation to proactively address these de­
compliance. This finding supports the concept that the government is an mands. Customers nowadays patronize companies with eco-friendly
important stakeholder whose demands for accountability and openness products and are willing to pay an additional cost for these products
must be met as per the stakeholder salience theory. Government rules hence driving companies to adopt technological innovations to better
and policies provide a framework within which businesses function, and address these demands in order to attract more customers, remain
it is essential to abide by these rules to maintain credibility and avoid competitive in the international market, and gain consumer loyalty as
penalties. The results of our investigation align with those of [34], who well as improving the image of the company. This result is in line with
found that government pressure had a positive and noteworthy influ­ the stakeholder theory which suggests that key external stakeholders
ence on ESG disclosure. In a similar vein, [35] research revealed that including customers have a substantial impact on corporate behavior.
government pressure has a favorable and substantial impact on the de­ Also, a recent study conducted by [61] revealed that customer pressure
gree of web-based environmental disclosure. significantly impacts the execution of green innovation. Moreover, the
Following the stakeholder theory, firms should meet the re­ path significance results in Table 6 revealed that sustainability disclo­
quirements and expectations of many stakeholders, including share­ sure is significantly and positively influenced by customer pressure.
holders. Shareholders, as essential stakeholders, have substantial Customers, particularly in markets with a high level of ecological
influence over business behavior. Environmentally responsible share­ awareness, demand companies to be more transparent and accountable
holders with a long-term objective may exert more pressure on firms to for their ecological impact and also, disclose information about the
adopt green technological innovation and disclose sustainability data. environmental impact of their products. This pressure compels firms to
Hence, we first hypothesized shareholder pressure significantly in­ disclose comprehensive environmental accounting data and the quality
fluences green technological innovation (H,2, a). Second, we assumed and impact of their products to enhance their corporate image and
that shareholder pressure has a positive and substantial impact on sus­ preserve consumer loyalty. This outcome validates the concept of
tainability disclosure (H,2,b). Shareholders’ awareness of customers’ stakeholder theory, which posits that firms are accountable to all
demand for eco-friendly products and services, and financial losses stakeholders and must meet their expectations, particularly those con­
arising from breaching environmental regulations exert pressure on nected to the environment and product quality and impact. The findings
companies’ management to adopt green technological innovations of a recent study by [47] that pressure from customers had a substantial
through shareholders’ resolutions and voting powers to maximize their favorable influence on carbon disclosure is consistent with the results of
long-term financial gains. Companies are dependent on key share­ our study.
holders for their financial resources and are therefore responsive to their Based on the institutional theory companies implement green tech­
demands for the implementation of green innovations to address other nological innovations to respond to emerging pressures from various
various stakeholders’ concerns about sustainability while maximizing stakeholders, as companies seek credibility and survival, they tend to
their wealth. This finding is consistent with the stakeholder theory, comply with institutional pressures by implementing technological in­
which states that shareholders, as primary stakeholders, have a signifi­ novations, and disclosure processes to meet the stakeholders’ sustain­
cant influence on strategic decisions as well as sustainability-oriented ability demands. In line with H4, the result of the path significance
initiatives of companies. The outcome of this study aligns with the re­ analysis in Table 6 demonstrated that green technological innovations
sults of research by [34], which revealed that shareholder pressure has a positively and significantly influence companies’ sustainability disclo­
positive and substantial influence on firms’ green innovation. Also, the sure. Green technological innovations by nature facilitate sustainable
outcome in Table 6 indicated that shareholder pressure had a consid­ activities and minimize environmental impact. Companies leverage
erable influence on company sustainability disclosure, corroborating these innovations to improve their environmental impact and disclose
H2b. Institutional stockholders are increasingly demanding environ­ sustainability information data, potentially as a strategy to demonstrate
mental transparency to avoid risks and conform to sustainable invest­ a dedication to social and environmental responsibility in order to gain
ment strategies. Managers have recognized that firms with strong stakeholders’ approval and ensure regulatory compliance. This finding
environmental performance are more likely to get investment capital is consistent with previous research [99,100] emphasizing that

9
I. Sulemana et al. Sustainable Futures 9 (2025) 100445

technological advancements frequently increase data gathering, pro­ 5. Conclusion, policy implication and limitations
cessing, and reporting capabilities, allowing companies to provide more
comprehensive and accurate sustainability disclosure. 5.1. Conclusion
Regarding the moderating effect, the path significance results
revealed that corporate culture does not moderate the relationship be­ This study examines the influence of stakeholders’ pressure on sus­
tween government pressure and sustainability disclosure confirming tainability disclosure considering the mediating and moderating role of
H5. Government pressure is frequently expressed via regulations, green technological innovation and corporate culture in Ghana. This
compliance standards, and policy mandates. These external factors study relied on primary data gathered from 214 respondents from
provide limited opportunity for discretional interpretation with com­ various mining and manufacturing firms. We employed the PLS-SEM
panies, since non-compliance may result in substantial penalties and approach to analyze the data using Smart PLS 4. Software.
reputational damage. As a result, companies respond to government The results of the study revealed that stakeholders’ pressure (gov­
pressure regardless of their internal cultural dynamics. In other words, a ernment, shareholder, and customer) pressures significantly impacts
company with a strong sustainability-focused culture will still disclose green technological innovation and sustainability disclosure while green
the same information to the same extent as one with a less environ­ technological innovation mediates these relationships. In addition,
mentally sensitive culture in response to government pressure. Unex­ corporate culture partially moderates the relationships between stake­
pectedly our finding differs from a recent research conducted by [17], holders’ pressure and sustainability disclosure. Based on these results,
who found that cultural norms of innovation, quality and teamwork, and firms should enhance their investment in green technological in­
technological-oriented corporate culture have a significant influence on novations to successfully respond to stakeholders’ expectations on sus­
ecological performance. On the other hand, following H6 and H7, the tainability disclosure. Moreover, firms should cultivate a culture that
results revealed that corporate culture moderates positively and signif­ values sustainability and ethical practices to improve their response to
icantly the relationship between shareholder and customer pressures, stakeholder concerns.
and sustainability disclosure. Companies with a robust, By revealing the significant impact of government, shareholders, and
sustainability-oriented corporate culture prioritize transparency, customers’ pressure on green technological innovation and sustain­
accountability, and responsiveness to stakeholders’ demands; hence, ability disclosure, this research contributes to a body of knowledge on
they strengthen the positive impact of shareholders’ pressure on sus­ sustainability disclosure and stakeholder theory, demonstrating how
tainability disclosure by prioritizing transparency, accountability, and various stakeholders such as government, shareholders, and customers
responsiveness to stakeholders’ concerns. In cultures where boards of can impact sustainability metrics. Additionally, this research contributes
directors prioritize innovation and environmental responsibility, they to existing literature on the role of technology in sustainability by
tend to improve the quality and timeliness of sustainability disclosures. demonstrating how green technological innovations can improve a
This finding supports the organizational behavior theory which posits firm’s responsiveness to stakeholder expectations. It emphasizes the role
that corporate culture shapes how firms understand and respond to of technological breakthroughs in improving firms’ sustainability ini­
external pressures, enhanced proactive behavior, and sustainability tiatives. Moreover, by focusing on an emerging market, this study con­
disclosure. Moreover, our study result is similar to [72] who found that tributes to the existing literature by providing insights into how
corporate culture significantly influences ESG outcomes. companies in these regions respond to diverse stakeholder pressures and
Finally, concerning the mediating impact, the path significance re­ navigate the complexities of sustainability disclosure. The findings have
sults in Table 6 showed that green technological innovation mediates significant implications for policymakers, corporate managers, and re­
the relationship between government, shareholder, and customer pres­ searchers interested in enhancing sustainability practices and disclo­
sure and sustainability disclosure confirming H8, H9, and H10 respec­ sures in emerging markets.
tively. Companies under government regulatory pressures such as
carbon emission reduction and sustainable reporting requirements 5.2. Policy implications
adopt and use technological innovations as a strategy to comply with
government standards to avoid fines, penalties, and reputational dam­ This study has several policy implications. Initially, policymakers
age. Technological innovations like carbon capture and storage facil­ should provide regulations and opportunities that motivate firms to
ities, and digital technologies like blockchain technologies enable embrace green technological innovations and improve their sustain­
companies to address sustainability concerns and comply with govern­ ability disclosure. Policymakers may drive business behavior towards
ment regulatory standards. Moreover, companies respond to share­ more sustainable practices and transparent reporting creating a sup­
holders’ pressure for sustainability disclosure through the use of portive regulatory framework and financial incentives that line with
technological innovations like data analytics, and advanced software to stakeholders’ expectations. Also, corporate managers should align their
measure and track their environmental impact and improve the quality, organizational strategies with important stakeholders’ expectations,
transparency, and efficiency of their sustainability reporting to maintain especially in terms of sustainability and transparency. Aligning company
and attract environmentally responsible shareholders and demonstrate plans with stakeholders’ expectations may lead to improved stakeholder
their commitment to sustainability. Finally, to build trust and credi­ interactions, a stronger corporate reputation, and long-term success.
bility, companies under customer pressure may be compelled to Dealing with stakeholders’ concerns successfully helps firms stay
leverage technological innovations to satisfy customers’ needs, such as competitive and perceived as socially responsible.
the demand for high-quality and eco-friendly products, and disclosing
product impact information, ultimately maintaining and attracting 5.3. Limitations and future research
additional customers. Our findings provide credence to the institutional
theory, which holds that companies adopt green technologies to respond The drawbacks of this research are: first it concentrated on only three
to the demands, and requirements of their external environment to show forms of stakeholders’ pressure, government, shareholders, and cus­
their commitment to ecological norms and sustainability. Our finding is tomers’ pressure. It failed to take into account other stakeholder groups,
in line with [81] research that found green innovation mediates the including media, suppliers, non-governmental organizations, and com­
relationship between digital transformation and a firm’s ESG munity pressure, all of which may have a substantial effect on sustain­
performance. ability disclosure. By excluding these stakeholders, the research may
have provided a distorted view of different external influences that
impact sustainability reporting. This drawback limits the generalization
of the results to a wider range of stakeholders’ pressure and interactions.

10
I. Sulemana et al. Sustainable Futures 9 (2025) 100445

Prospective studies should broaden the concept of stakeholder pressure draft, Visualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation,
to encompass additional key groups including non-governmental orga­ Conceptualization. Limei Cheng: Writing – review & editing, Writing –
nizations, the community, and the media. original draft, Visualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Conceptu­
Moreover, this research only used four metrics to assess the depen­ alization. Andrew Osei Agyemang: Writing – review & editing, Writing
dent construct, sustainability disclosure. This narrow set of indicators – original draft, Visualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal
may not adequately capture the complexities and depth of sustainability analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Abednego Osei: Writing –
disclosure which includes a broad variety of ESG concerns. This review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Methodology,
restricted measurement technique may result in an insufficient evalua­ Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Timothy Masuni
tion of a firm’s sustainability practices and perhaps may omit vital ele­ Nagriwum: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visu­
ments of sustainability disclosure that are significant to various alization, Validation, Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation,
stakeholders. This drawback may have an impact on the robustness and Conceptualization.
comprehensiveness of the results. Prospective research should employ a
broader set of metrics to assess sustainability disclosure, including the Declaration of competing interest
whole range of ESG factors.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
CRediT authorship contribution statement

Inusah Sulemana: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original

Appendix A

Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with each statement by picking an appropriate answer on the given scale.
Antecedents
1 Strongly Disagree; 2 Disagree; 3 Neutral; 4 Agree; and 5 Strongly Agree

Constructs Code Statements 1 2 3 4 5

GovP1 Government laws strongly influence our firm’s ecological policies ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

GovP2 Our firm is motivated by government incentives to adopt sustainable practices. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
Government Pressure GovP3 We disclose sustainability information to comply with government standards. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
GovP4 Government environmental policies significantly impact our business operations. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
GovP5 The threat of government penalties compels us to improve our sustainability disclosure. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
ShaP1 Shareholders are highly interested in our company’s sustainability practices. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
ShaP2 We face pressure from shareholders to enhance our sustainability disclosure. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
ShaP3 Shareholders’ expectations drive our company’s investment in green technologies. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
Shareholder Pressure
ShaP4 Shareholders are concerned about our company’s environmental impact. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
ShaP5 Our sustainability disclosure practices are influenced by shareholder demands. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
ShaP6 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
CusP1 Our customers expect us to have sustainable business practices and disclose ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
CusP2 Our firm provides sustainability data to meet customer demands. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
Customer Pressure CusP3 Customer feedback significantly influences our sustainability initiatives. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
CusP4 We prioritize customer ESG concerns in CSR disclosure. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
Cusp5 Customer demand for eco-friendly products drives our sustainability disclosure. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
GTI1 We use digital platforms and advanced technologies to improve the accuracy of our sustainability ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
Green Technological disclosures.
Innovation GTI2 Our company actively invests in green technologies to minimize our environmental impact. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
GTI3 Our adoption of green technologies is driven by external pressures. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
CorC1 Our company culture strongly supports sustainability and ethical business practices. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
CorC2 Employees at all levels are encouraged to participate in sustainability initiatives. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
Corporate culture
CorC3 Sustainability is a core value that is embedded in our organizational culture. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
CorC4 The corporate culture in our firm prioritizes transparency in sustainability reporting. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
SusD1 Our company provides detailed sustainability reports annually. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
SusD2 Our sustainability disclosure meets or exceeds industry standards. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
Sustainability Disclosure
SusD3 We are transparent about our sustainability challenges and successes. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
SusD4 Our sustainability reports are accessible and understandable to stakeholders. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Data availability [3] C. Mio, M. Agostini, F. Scarpa, Sustainability Reporting: Conception,

International Approaches and Double Materiality in Action, Springer Nature,
2024.
Data will be made available on request. [4] M. Sadiq, T.Q. Ngo, A.A. Pantamee, K. Khudoykulov, T.T. Ngan, L.P. Tan, The
role of environmental social and governance in achieving sustainable
development goals: evidence from ASEAN countries, Econ. Research-Ekonomska
References
Istraživanja 36 (1) (2023) 170–190.
[5] S. Adom, K. Matsui, Investigating barriers to low-carbon policy implementation
[1] A. ElAlfy, N. Palaschuk, D. El-Bassiouny, J. Wilson, O. Weber, Scoping the among mining companies in Ghana, Sustainability. 16 (5) (2024) 1798.
evolution of corporate social responsibility (CSR) research in the sustainable [6] G.K. Agyapong, R.K. Opoku, A. Asiedu, S.E. Frimpong, Sustainable procurement
development goals (SDGs) era, Sustainability. 12 (14) (2020) 5544. practices and sustainable performance: evidence from small and medium-sized
[2] B. Bais, G. Nassimbeni, G. Orzes, Global Reporting Initiative: literature review manufacturing enterprises in an emerging economy, Int. J. Procurement Manag.
and research directions, J. Clean. Prod. (2024) 143428. 20 (1) (2024) 1–32.

11
I. Sulemana et al. Sustainable Futures 9 (2025) 100445

[7] J.A. Baafi, Unraveling Ghana’s resource curse hypothesis: analyzing natural [37] S.C. Posadas, S. Ruiz-Blanco, B. Fernandez-Feijoo, L. Tarquinio, Institutional
resources and economic growth with a focus on oil exploration, Economies 12 (4) isomorphism under the test of non-financial reporting directive. Evidence from
(2024) 79. Italy and Spain, Meditari Accountancy Res. 31 (7) (2023) 26–48.
[8] B. Boateng, The role of Collaboration in dealing with Ankobra River Pollution: [38] F. Bhuiyan, T. Rana, K. Baird, R. Munir, Strategic outcome of competitive
Investigating the power Structures Responsible for the Pollution in Adelekezo and advantage from corporate sustainability practices: Institutional theory
Eziome, Western Region of Ghana, NTNU, 2023. perspective from an emerging economy, Bus. Strategy. Environ. 32 (7) (2023)
[9] E. Nkansah-Dwamena, Why small-scale circular agriculture is central to food 4217–4243.
security and environmental sustainability in sub-saharan Africa? The case of [39] A. Waheed, M. Shahid Khan, M.A. Warraich, M.A. Ali, Environmental policy vs.
Ghana, Circ. Econ. Sustain. (2023) 1–25. environmental innovation: An examination of policies disclosure on sustainable
[10] G.K. Amoako, A.M. Adam, G. Tackie, C.L. Arthur, Environmental accountability development from stakeholder theory perspective, Sustain. Develop. 32 (3)
practices of environmentally sensitive firms in Ghana: does institutional (2024) 2506–2516.
isomorphism matter? Sustainability. 13 (17) (2021) 9489. [40] H. Sminia, Strategizing with institutional theory, Elements Bus. Strat. (2024).
[11] C. Okai-Mensah, E. Howard, K. Okai-Mensah, Sustainable practices of the large- [41] J. Xie, K. Abbass, D. Li, Advancing eco-excellence: integrating stakeholders’
scale textile firms in Ghana, Cleaner Circular Bioecon. 2 (2022) 100020. pressures, environmental awareness, and ethics for green innovation and
[12] P. Amoah, G. Eweje, Barriers to environmental sustainability practices of performance, J. Environ. Manage 352 (2024) 120027.
multinational mining companies in Ghana: an institutional complexity [42] W. Assoratgoon, S. Kantabutra, Toward a sustainability organizational culture
perspective, Corporate Governance: Int. J. Bus. Soc. 22 (2) (2022) 364–384. model, J. Clean. Prod. 400 (2023) 136666.
[13] Simpson, S.N.Y., Aboagye-Otchere, F., & Ahadzie, R. (2022). Assurance of [43] K.N.E. Bienert, The Relationship Between Corporate Sustainability and Corporate
environmental, social and governance disclosures in a developing country: perspectives Culture: Identification of the Core Corporate Values that Drive Sustainability in
of regulators and quasi-regulators. Paper presented at the Accounting Forum. Business, Universidade Catolica Portuguesa (Portugal), 2023.
[14] E.E. Welbeck, The influence of institutional environment on corporate [44] N. Khaddage-Soboh, M. Yunis, M. Imran, F. Zeb, Sustainable practices in
responsibility disclosures in Ghana, Meditari Account. Res. 25 (2) (2017) Malaysian manufacturing: The influence of CSR, transformational leadership, and
216–240. green organizational culture on environmental performance, Econ. Anal. Policy.
[15] Freeman, R. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. 82 (2024) 753–768.
[16] S. Arvidsson, J. Dumay, Corporate ESG reporting quantity, quality and [45] M. Latip, I. Sharkawi, Z. Mohamed, N. Kasron, The impact of external
performance: Where to now for environmental policy and practice? Bus. Strategy. stakeholders’ pressures on the intention to adopt environmental management
Environ. 31 (3) (2022) 1091–1110. practices and the moderating effects of firm size, J. Small Bus. Strat. 32 (3) (2022)
[17] M.D. Costa, S. Opare, Impact of corporate culture on environmental performance, 45–66.
J. Bus. Ethics (2024) 1–32. [46] M.H. Sayadi, D. Setiawan, Influence of ownership structure and international
[18] N. Sehgal, Organizational behaviour: Theory and practice, Academic Guru operations on web-based environmental disclosure in the Asian mining industry,
Publishing House, 2023. Sustain. Futures 8 (2024) 100275.
[19] A. Reid, E. Ringel, S.M. Pendleton, Transparency reports as CSR reports: motives, [47] A. Bedi, B. Singh, Unraveling the impact of stakeholder pressure on carbon
stakeholders, and strategies, Soc. Respons. J. 20 (1) (2024) 81–107. disclosure in an emerging economy, Social Responsibility J. 20 (4) (2024)
[20] P.D. Thelen, A. Formanchuk, Culture and internal communication in Chile: 703–718.
linking ethical organizational culture, transparent communication, and employee [48] K. Yin, Y. Miao, C. Huang, Environmental regulation, technological innovation,
advocacy, Public Relat. Rev. 48 (1) (2022) 102137. and industrial structure upgrading, Energy Environ. 35 (1) (2024) 207–227.
[21] S. Sisaye, The organizational ecological resource framework of sustainability [49] S. Zhao, L. Teng, J. Ji, Impact of environmental regulations on eco-innovation:
reporting: implications for corporate social reporting (CSR), J. Bus. Soc.-Econ. the moderating role of top managers’ environmental awareness and commitment,
Develop. 2 (2) (2022) 99–116. J. Environ. Planning Manag. 67 (10) (2024) 2229–2256.
[22] G. Rimmel, Global reporting initiative. Accounting for Sustainability, Routledge, [50] X. Liu, J. Cifuentes-Faura, S. Zhao, L. Wang, The impact of government
2020, pp. 111–125. environmental attention on firms’ ESG performance: Evidence from China, Res.
[23] H.B. Christensen, L. Hail, C. Leuz, Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: Int. Bus. Finance 67 (2024) 102124.
economic analysis and literature review, Rev. Account. Stud. 26 (3) (2021) [51] T.S. Nugrahani, K.I. Atiqoh, I.F.P. Pertiwi, The effect of industry type,
1176–1248. government pressure, and company size to disclosure of sustainability report,
[24] F. Doni, S. Bianchi Martini, A. Corvino, M. Mazzoni, Voluntary versus mandatory J. Bus. Manag. Rev. 3 (1) (2022) 045–056.
non-financial disclosure: EU Directive 95/2014 and sustainability reporting [52] N.O. Gold, F.M. Taib, Corporate governance and extent of corporate sustainability
practices based on empirical evidence from Italy, Meditari Account. Res. 28 (5) practice: the role of investor activism, Soc. Respons. J. 19 (1) (2023) 184–210.
(2020) 781–802. [53] N.T. Le Ha, T.N.H Khanh, Stakeholders and esg disclosure, Int. J. Inf., Bus. Manag.
[25] M.I. Khan, A. Iqbal, Integrating ESG with corporate investment decision-making. 16 (4) (2024) 46–52.
The Emerald Handbook of Ethical Finance and Corporate Social Responsibility: A [54] W. Wang, S. Liang, R. Yu, Y. Su, Theoretical evidence for green innovation driven
Framework for Sustainable Development, Emerald Publishing Limited, 2024, by multiple major shareholders: empirical evidence from Chinese listed
pp. 329–350. companies, Sustainability. 14 (8) (2022) 4736.
[26] D.P. Nugroho, Y. Hsu, C. Hartauer, A. Hartauer, Investigating the interconnection [55] C. Flammer, M.W. Toffel, K. Viswanathan, Shareholder activism and firms’
between environmental, social, and governance (ESG), and corporate social voluntary disclosure of climate change risks, Strateg. Manage J. 42 (10) (2021)
responsibility (CSR) strategies: an examination of the influence on consumer 1850–1879.
behavior, Sustainability. 16 (2) (2024) 614. [56] N. Ahmad, L. Youjin, S. Žiković, Z. Belyaeva, The effects of technological
[27] R.E. Freeman, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Cambridge innovation on sustainable development and environmental degradation: evidence
university press, 2010. from China, Technol. Soc. 72 (2023) 102184.
[28] S.D. Dmytriyev, R.E. Freeman, J. Hörisch, The relationship between stakeholder [57] M.K. Khalil, R. Khalil, Leveraging buyers’ interest in ESG investments through
theory and corporate social responsibility: differences, similarities, and sustainability awareness, Sustainability. 14 (21) (2022) 14278.
implications for social issues in management, J. Manag. Stud. 58 (6) (2021) [58] V.T. Liem, N.N. Hien, Customer pressure and environmental stewardship: the
1441–1470. moderator role of perceived benefit by managers, PLoS. One 19 (7) (2024)
[29] M. Liu, J. Lu, Q. Liu, H. Wang, Y. Yang, S. Fang, The impact of executive cognitive e0306616.
characteristics on a firm’s ESG performance: an institutional theory perspective, [59] M. Porter, C. Van der Linde, Green and competitive: ending the stalemate, Dyn.
J. Manag. Governance (2024) 1–29. Eco-Efficient Econ.: Environ. Regulat. Comp. Adv. 33 (1995) 120–134.
[30] H.A.d.A. Góes, G. Fatima, R.d.O. Santos Jhunior, J.M.G. Boaventura, Managing [60] E. Lestari, W. Dania, C. Indriani, I. Firdausyi, The impact of customer pressure
for stakeholders towards corporate environmental sustainability, Corp. Soc. and the environmental regulation on green innovation performance, in: Paper
Responsib. Environ. Manage 30 (4) (2023) 1561–1572. presented at the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2021.
[31] A. Buallay, G. Kukreja, E. Aldhaen, M. Al Mubarak, A.M. Hamdan, Corporate [61] N.K.H. Tran, Customer pressure and creating green innovation: The role of green
social responsibility disclosure and firms’ performance in Mediterranean thinking and green creativity, Sustain. Futures 7 (2024) 100177.
countries: a stakeholders’ perspective, EuroMed J. Bus. 15 (3) (2020) 361–375. [62] S.K. Singh, M. Del Giudice, C.J. Chiappetta Jabbour, H. Latan, A.S. Sohal,
[32] W. Ali, M. Rizwan, Factors influencing corporate social and environmental Stakeholder pressure, green innovation, and performance in small and medium-
disclosure (CSED) practices in the developing countries: an institutional sized enterprises: The role of green dynamic capabilities, Bus. Strategy. Environ.
theoretical perspective, Int. J. Asian Soc. Sci. 3 (3) (2013) 590–609. 31 (1) (2022) 500–514.
[33] M.T. Mahmud, Quest for a single theory to explain managerial motivations for [63] S. Majdi, N. Mohd Saleh, M. Abdullah, N. Alias, Stakeholder power and
sustainability disclosures: Legitimacy theory, stakeholder theory or institutional sustainability disclosure: stakeholder salience perspective, South East Asian J.
Theory, Bull. Japan. Assoc. Int. Account. Stud. 7 (2020) 135–159. Manag. 17 (1) (2023) 2.
[34] N. Alessa, J.Y. Akparep, I. Sulemana, A.O. Agyemang, Does stakeholder pressure [64] L. Li, H. Msaad, H. Sun, M.X. Tan, Y. Lu, A.K. Lau, Green innovation and business
influence firms environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure? Evidence sustainability: new evidence from energy intensive industry in China, Int. J.
from Ghana, Cogent Bus. Manag. 11 (1) (2024) 2303790. Environ. Res. Public Health 17 (21) (2020) 7826.
[35] P.J. DiMaggio, W.W. Powell, The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism [65] D. Li, M. Huang, S. Ren, X. Chen, L. Ning, Environmental legitimacy, green
and collective rationality in organizational fields, Am. Sociol. Rev. 48 (2) (1983) innovation, and corporate carbon disclosure: evidence from CDP China 100,
147–160. J. Bus. Ethics 150 (2018) 1089–1104.
[36] J.J. Wukich, E.L. Neuman, T.J. Fogarty, Show me? Inspire me? Make me? An [66] Zarra, A., Simonelli, F., Lenaerts, K., Luo, M., Baiocco, S., Shenglin, B., …
institutional theory exploration of social and environmental reporting practices, Kilhoffer, Z. (2019). Sustainability in the age of platforms. EMSD challenge fund-
J. Account. Organiz. Change 20 (4) (2024) 673–701. final report.

12
I. Sulemana et al. Sustainable Futures 9 (2025) 100445

[67] H. Khuan, A.A. Bakri, H. Lusianawati, Sustainability and corporate social [85] L.D. Thuan, M.T.H. Minh, P.Q. Huy, Impact of social responsibility disclosure
responsibility in digital platform companies, West Sci. J. Econ. Entrepreneur. 1 between implementation of environmental accounting, green HRM, energy
(08) (2023) 358–367. efficiency, and sustainable development: a study of Vietnam, Cuadernos de
[68] Ning, X., Yim, D., & Khuntia, J. (2022). Disclosure on online sustainability Economía 47 (133) (2024) 43–53.
platforms and value creation for digital vs. non-digital firms. [86] H. Zeng, X. Li, Q. Zhou, L. Wang, Local government environmental regulatory
[69] L. Bryl, E. Supino, Sustainability disclosure in social media–substitutionary or pressures and corporate environmental strategies: evidence from natural resource
complementary to traditional reporting? J. Intercult. Manag. 14 (3) (2022) accountability audits in China, Bus. Strategy. Environ. 31 (7) (2022) 3060–3082.
41–62. [87] R.F. Wardiman, D. Muid, H. Hamdani, The influence of social pressure, market
[70] S. Altman, E. Valenzi, R.M. Hodgetts, Organizational Behavior: Theory and pressure, shareholder pressure and the reputation of public accounting firms on
Practice, Elsevier, 2013. carbon emission disclosure, J. Manajemen Bisnis 10 (1) (2023) 84–97.
[71] M. Asif, L. Yang, M. Hashim, The role of digital transformation, corporate culture, [88] J. Li, K. Dong, X. Dong, Green energy as a new determinant of green growth in
and leadership in enhancing corporate sustainable performance in the China: The role of green technological innovation, Energy Econ. 114 (2022)
manufacturing sector of China, Sustainability. 16 (7) (2024) 2651. 106260.
[72] F. Bai, M. Shang, Y. Huang, Corporate culture and ESG performance: empirical [89] A.A. Bhat, A.A. Mir, A.H. Allie, M.A. Lone, A.S. Al-Adwan, D. Jamali, I. Riyaz,
evidence from China, J. Clean. Prod. 437 (2024) 140732. Unlocking corporate social responsibility and environmental performance:
[73] Ashford, N.A. (1993). Understanding technological responses of industrial firms mediating role of green strategy, innovation, and leadership, Innov. Green
to environmental problems: Implications for government policy (chapter). Develop. 3 (2) (2024) 100112.
[74] C. Wang, D. Du, T. Liu, X. Li, Y. Zhu, W. Du, J. Chen, Environmental regulations, [90] E. Fosu, F. Fosu, N. Akyina, D. Asiedu, Do environmental CSR practices promote
green technological innovation, and green economy: evidence from china, corporate social performance? The mediating role of green innovation and
Sustainability. 16 (13) (2024) 5630. corporate image, Cleaner Respons. Consump. 12 (2024) 100155.
[75] M. Onifade, T. Zvarivadza, J.A. Adebisi, K.O. Said, O. Dayo-Olupona, A.I. Lawal, [91] E. Tarver, T. Brock, P. Rathburn, Corporate Culture Definition, Characteristics,
M. Khandelwal, Advancing toward sustainability: the emergence of green mining and Importance, Investopedia, 2023.
technologies and practices, Green Smart Mining Eng. 1 (2) (2024) 157–174. [92] J.F. Hair Jr, G.T.M. Hult, C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt, N.P. Danks, S Ray, Partial
[76] Y. Wu, J. Tham, The impact of environmental regulation, environment, social and Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: A Workbook,
government performance, and technological innovation on enterprise resilience Springer Nature, 2021.
under a green recovery, Heliyon. 9 (10) (2023). [93] M.S.A. Mondal, N. Akter, A.M. Ibrahim, Nexus of environmental accounting,
[77] S. Lodhia, A. Kaur, G. Stone, The use of social media as a legitimation tool for sustainable production and financial performance: An integrated analysis using
sustainability reporting: a study of the top 50 Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) PLS-SEM, fsQCA, and NCA, Environ. Challenges 15 (2024) 100878.
listed companies, Meditari Account. Res. 28 (4) (2020) 613–632. [94] Ab Hamid, M. R., Sami, W., & Sidek, M. M. (2017). Discriminant validity
[78] A. Iazzi, L. Ligorio, L. Iaia, Were we prepared to face a pandemic? Exploring assessment: Use of Fornell & Larcker criterion versus HTMT criterion. Paper
companies’ CSR disclosure on social media before COVID-19 outbreak, Manag. presented at the Journal of physics: Conference series.
Decision 60 (10) (2022) 2849–2874. [95] C. Fornell, D.F. Larcker, Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
[79] M.A. Petcu, M.-I. Sobolevschi-David, S.C. Curea, Integrating digital technologies variables and measurement error, J. Mark. Res. 18 (1) (1981) 39–50.
in sustainability accounting and reporting: perceptions of professional cloud [96] G. Shmueli, M. Sarstedt, J.F. Hair, J.H. Cheah, H. Ting, S. Vaithilingam, C.
computing users, Electronics 13 (14) (2024) 2684. M. Ringle, Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: guidelines for using
[80] S. Zhou, M.H.U. Rashid, S.A. Mohd Zobair, F.A. Sobhani, A.B Siddik, Does ESG PLSpredict, Eur. J. Mark. 53 (11) (2019) 2322–2347.
impact firms’ sustainability performance? The mediating effect of innovation [97] Z. Rui, Y. Lu, Stakeholder pressure, corporate environmental ethics and green
performance, Sustainability 15 (6) (2023) 5586. innovation, Asian J. Technol. Innov 29 (1) (2021) 70–86.
[81] S. Wu, Y. Li, A study on the impact of digital transformation on corporate ESG [98] C.W. Sari, I.P. Sudana, N.M.D. Ratnadi, N.K. Rasmini, Stakeholder pressure and
performance: the mediating role of green innovation, Sustainability. 15 (8) environmental performance of manufacturing companies on the Indonesian stock
(2023) 6568. exchange, Linguistics Cult. Rev. 6 (S1) (2022) 893–903.
[82] F. Schuberth, M.E. Rademaker, J. Henseler, Assessing the overall fit of composite [99] S. Pizzi, G. Mastroleo, A. Venturelli, F. Caputo, The digitalization of sustainability
models estimated by partial least squares path modeling, Eur. J. Mark. 57 (6) reporting processes: a conceptual framework, Bus. Strategy. Environ. 33 (2)
(2023) 1678–1702. (2024) 1040–1050.
[83] DARSHIL, S., & BHATT, D.V. (2024). “An empirical investigation of green [100] A. Saxena, R. Singh, A. Gehlot, S.V. Akram, B. Twala, A. Singh, N. Priyadarshi,
accounting adoption intention by small and medium enterprises of Gujarat”. Technologies empowered environmental, social, and governance (ESG): an
[84] I. Abeysekera, A framework for sustainability reporting, Sustain. Account., industry 4.0 landscape, Sustainability 15 (1) (2022) 309.
Manag. Policy J. 13 (6) (2022) 1386–1409.

13