Do firms operating in a shared institutional environment have similar sustainability disclosure practices? A comparative analysis of multinational and locally listed firms in Africa

Penney, Emmanuel Kofi; Owusu-Ansah, Anthony; Amewu, Godfred; Nsor-Ambala, Randolph Article Do firms operating in a shared institutional environment have similar sustainability disclosure practices? A comparative analysis of multinational and locally listed firms in Africa Cogent Business & Management Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Penney, Emmanuel Kofi; Owusu-Ansah, Anthony; Amewu, Godfred; NsorAmbala, Randolph (2023) : Do firms operating in a shared institutional environment have similar sustainability disclosure practices? A comparative analysis of multinational and locally listed firms in Africa, Cogent Business & Management, ISSN 2331-1975, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 10, Iss. 2, pp. 1-19, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2207886 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/294410 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oabm20 Cogent Business & Management ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oabm20 Do firms operating in a shared institutional environment have similar sustainability disclosure practices? A comparative analysis of multinational and locally listed firms in Africa Emmanuel Kofi Penney, Anthony Owusu-Ansah, Godfred Amewu & Randolph Nsor-Ambala To cite this article: Emmanuel Kofi Penney, Anthony Owusu-Ansah, Godfred Amewu & Randolph Nsor-Ambala (2023) Do firms operating in a shared institutional environment have similar sustainability disclosure practices? A comparative analysis of multinational and locally listed firms in Africa, Cogent Business & Management, 10:2, 2207886, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2023.2207886 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2207886 © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Published online: 15 May 2023. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 735 View related articles View Crossmark data ACCOUNTING, CORPORATE GOVERNANCE & BUSINESS ETHICS | REVIEW ARTICLE Do firms operating in a shared institutional environment have similar sustainability disclosure practices? A comparative analysis of multinational and locally listed firms in Africa Emmanuel Kofi Penney 1 *, Anthony Owusu-Ansah 2 , Godfred Amewu 3 and Randolph NsorAmbala 4 Abstract: This study compares the quality of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) practices and reporting of firms operating in Africa listed in Western economies and firms exclusively listed on the African stock exchange, using the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) CSR checklist. Interpretive content analysis was conducted on the website publications and relevant reports of 135 firms listed on African stock exchanges. Non-parametric(Mann-Whitney U and Cohen d test) analyses were applied to check for significant differences between the mean scores of Westernlisted firms and locally listed firms operating in African countries. The study’s findings indicate (1) a Low CSR disclosure rate and (2) no significant CSR disclosure difference between exclusively African market-listed firms and multinationals. Multinationals do not lead in sustainability reporting. The finding of this study is a proposal for emerging economies to strengthen institutions and make them independent. The findings further encourage regulators and policymakers to question, with utmost importance, why the sophisticated propitious sustainability initiatives and reporting of Western economies are not practised in the developing world. Unlike previous studies, the current research uses Institutional Theory to compare CSR disclosure tendencies of environmentally Sensitive Industries (ESI) in which environmental policies seemingly make sustainability reporting quasimandatory. Subjects: Cost Accounting; Financial Accounting; Management Accounting; Corporate Social Responsibility & Business Ethics Keywords: Sustainability; disclosures; reporting; sustainability reporting; sub-Saharan Africa; CSR 1. Introduction In recent years, comparative studies of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reporting have become standard research practices and have increased globally (Panayiotou et al., 2009). The need to convey to various reporters that environmental and social risks should be managed Penney et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2207886 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2207886 Page 1 of 19 Received: 10 March 2023 Accepted: 24 April 2023 *Corresponding author: Emmanuel Kofi Penney, Department of Accounting, Faculty of Accounting and Finance, University of Professional Studies, Accra, Ghana E-mail: [email protected] Reviewing editor: Collins G. Ntim, Accounting, University of Southampton, UK Additional information is available at the end of the article © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. appropriately (Simnett et al., 2009) drives CSR comparative studies. In the absence of firms obtaining external assurance of their CSR reports to highlight their superior commitment to CSR initiatives (Braam & Peeters, 2018), comparative study results can urge relatively poor reporters to emulate the quality environmental practices of excelling firms. Many studies have delved into the variation in the performance of CSR disclosures across developed and emerging economies, and these studies exhibit a conclusively significant difference in sustainability practices in favour of listed firms in Western economies (Bhatia & Makkar, 2019; Fatima, 2017; Fifka et al., 2018; Kane et al., 2017; Vilar & Simão, 2015). Bhatia and Makkar (2019) analysed and contrasted the Corporate Social Responsibility reporting procedures of corporations in developed (the United States and the United Kingdom) and BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) countries. According to this study’s conclusions, affluent countries have higher CSR disclosure scores than developing countries. These findings support the hypothesis that the disclosure of corporate social responsibility (CSR) is more prevalent in industrialised nations, whereas it is still in its infancy in regions with lower development indexes (Vilar & Simão, 2015). Indeed, compared to South Korea, a less developed country, US corporations demonstrate better depth and breadth of CSR information sharing (Kane et al., 2017). Acemoglu et al. (2014) argue that institutions are proven to be a driving force behind economic progress. In that vein, Institutions play a pivotal role in sustainable development practices that seek the welfare of the larger society. Therefore sectors with different institutions will differ in their sustainable development practices (Bhattacharya et al., 2017). Thus, the institutional factors in which companies operate are critical to the level and degree of CSR practices and reporting (ElBassiouny & ElBassiouny, 2019). There is a strong correlation between institutional pressure and CSR participation (Al-Mamun & Seamer, 2021). CSR is highly contextual (Matten & Moon, 2008; Ling, 2019). Usually, CSR depends on sociopolitical arrangements (Acutt et al., 2004), institutional framework conditions, regulatory independence, and financial and economic development are determinants of CSR (J. Kim & Jeon, 2015). Developed and emerging markets have distinct institutional environments (Khan et al., 2021). In developing economies, such as Sub-Saharan Africa, institutions are weak and fragile (Famiyeh et al., 2021), and the same are NGOs and the media (Bhatia & Makkar, 2019). Firms operating in environmentally sensitive industries, such as the resource industry, must produce annual environmental assessment reports to ensure operational continuity; however, they largely fail to create reports. Therefore, there is an urgent need to strengthen the rule of law in developing economies to enhance CSR engagement evidence in the current debate in sustainability literature regarding mandatory firm CSR disclosure (Al-Mamun & Seamer, 2021). In contrast, Western economies’ stringent listing requirements seemingly enforce environmental laws that constructively mandate firms to produce environmental assessment reports (see, e.g., the cases of large European Union firms in Italy, Germany, and Denmark following the implementation of directive 2014/95/EU and the United States). Furthermore, the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) 2013 released guiding principles for preparing integrated reports that primarily constitute financial and non-financial (sustainability) reports. Indirectly, sustainability reporting has become quasi-mandatory (Ackers & Grobbelaar, 2021) with the rule of law. By implication, it is the order of the day in developed economies (Chambers et al., 2003) to the extent that even political connections, a discreet relationship between firms and politicians, purported to obtain gains, enhance CSR in the developed economy (Bianchi et al., 2019) (see, e.g., Portuguese economy). Studies that compared firms in developed and developing economies failed to consider the institutional distinction between developed and emerging economies (Hoskisson et al., 2000) and are likely to lead to different relative CSR disclosure performances (Julian & Ofori-dankwa, 2013) between Western economies and emerging market firms. This study compares the CSR disclosure performance of MNCs and local firms operating in a shared weak and insubstantial contextual environment such as sub-Saharan Africa. This study tackles the scarcity of empirical information on the role of institutional features on CSR engagement in Sub-Saharan Africa rather than globally (Ioannou & Serafeim, 2012; Young & Penney et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2207886 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2207886 Page 2 of 19 Makhija, 2014; Lim and Tsutsui, 2012). This study is significant because most existing studies limit the analysis to either specific developed economies (Midttun et al., 2006) or, to a lesser extent, specific developing economies (Khan et al., 2013; Aracil, 2019) or both developed and developing economies in a single comparative study (Al-Mamun & Seamer, 2021; Bhatia & Makkar, 2019; Fifka et al., 2017). Thus, the study adopts a sub-Saharan Africa cross-country approach, examining how a shared weak and fragile institutional environment (Famiyeh et al., 2021) affects CSR reporting across the ESI and the potential difference between MNCs and local firms. In doing so, we move away from the existing narrow focus on a single-country context (Muthuri & Gilbert, 2011; Fatima, 2017; Kane et al., 2017) and the over-attention on Western cum BRICS economies context (Bhatia & Makkar, 2019) Only a few papers have investigated sustainability reporting in sub-Saharan Africa (Tilt et al., 2021). There is a need for further inquiry into the unique reporting patterns that exist in this potentially uniform setting. This study addresses the research gap by applying Institutional context to examine environmental responsibility and reporting between firms located in and operating in Africa with stimulus or listing from the developed economy(MNCs) and entities operating in Africa without any external listing (local firms). The choice of multinational and local firms hinges on differences in parental influence. Multinationals experience the spillover effect of advanced sustainability practices and reporting (Hosseini & Kaneko, 2013) deemed explicitly practising CSR in the Western economy (Matten & Moon, 2008). For instance, multinationals adopt similar sustainability practices where ever they operate (Husted & Allen, 2006). They tend to follow the CSR initiatives of their parent companies in developed economies and not the emerging CSR strategies, despite their appropriateness to the country where the subsidiary is located (Karyawati et al., 2020). However, local African enterprises have only recently grasped the importance of sustainable practices (Cho, 2020), and their sustainability reporting is values-based and norm-based (Kemp, 2001). The study conducted four tests. First, a Shapiro-Wilk normality test on each class of collected CSR data. The second test used the Mann-Whitney U test. In the third test, the study drew on significant differences to assess the effect size using Cohen’s d. In the fourth test, deploying the Fligner-Killeen test, the study evaluated the robustness of the findings Consequentially, the study makes the following contributions to the current body of knowledge in three key ways. First, the study adds empirical support to Institutional Theory research, suggesting that there are likely similar CSR responses between Western and emerging economies firms given the same institutional context in developing economies. Specifically, where institutional development undergirding CSR is weak and independent, Western firms will not have a customary higher CSR disclosure than local firms. Second, using data from emerging economies such as SSA will assist researchers in identifying critical differences in sustainability from different viewpoints. Thus, we generate findings in a CSR-relevant context of interest to various scholars and begin to build a theory-based understanding of the nature and implications of CSR in the institutional environment of Sub-Saharan Africa. Third, the expectations concerning sustainability concerns and the possible pressures of CEOs, managers, and investors who plan to diversify to globalisation, especially to a continent such as sub-Saharan Africa, will likely be confronted with. The remainder of the paper is designed to discuss the background of the study, the appraisal of the theoretical and empirical literature and the advancement of research hypotheses. Next are the methodological issues, the empirical results and the ensuing discourse. The final section provides a summary, conclusion, and suggestions for future studies. 2. Background of the study According to Ho and Wong (2001), studies conducted in developed nations may not apply to emerging economies due to differences in regulatory and cultural settings. Most CSR reports are comparative studies on multinational and local firms operating in weak institutional regimes in Asia (Narwal & Singh, 2013; Joseph et al., 2015; J. Kim & Jeon, 2015; Fatima, 2017). Most Asian Penney et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2207886 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2207886 Page 3 of 19 countries are nations where accelerating economic expansion may impede efforts to advance society and the environment (Liu et al., 2010; Zhang & Wen, 2008). Particularly comparative studies that involve ESI, where environmental regulations and policies put in place do sustainability practices and reporting quasi-mandatory (Tuokuu et al., 2019) (See, e.g., Environmental Protection Agency, 2002). To the best of the authors’ knowledge, only Hinson et al. compared MNCs and indigenous Ghanaian mining enterprises. However, ESI firms are mining, energy, and manufacturing firms For several reasons, SSA presents a vital context to test the hypotheses on ESI firms. First, for over 150 years, SSA’s ESI has driven employment, infrastructure development, and government revenue through exports, taxation, and royalty payments (Famiyeh et al., 2021; Tuokuu et al., 2019). Second, it is the most populous continent after Asia. It has difficulties such as access to clean water, deforestation, pollution, and poverty and has had largely ineffectual national strategies to address these issues. Although SSA is sensitive to the effects of global environmental problems, including climate change (Adelle et al., 2016), Africa, particularly in Sub-Saharan African countries with distinct and significant social and environmental challenges, sustainability reporting is extremely inadequate (Tilt et al., 2021). According to Hanson (2009), Africa is one of the world’s most corrupt regions, while Transparency International (IT) (2015) reports that six of the world’s ten most corrupt countries are in Sub-Saharan Africa. Economic and financial crimes (corruption) are common in SSA nations (Saddiq & Abu Bakar, 2019) to the extent that the populace pays 6.4 to 12.6% of their wages in bribes (World Bank Group, 2017). High levels of bribery and corruption (Ahunwan, 2002; OseiAssibey et al., 2018) and governmental interference in SSA influence CSR disclosure practices, as El Gammal et al. (2018) found that firms operating in regions with a level of state corruption shun away from CSR practices. Mangena and Tauringana (2007) mentioned that corruption and political meddling in company activities impair the corporate governance framework. NGOs and the media are also not sufficiently vigilant in SSA countries (Amao, 2008; Atuguba & Dowuona-Hammond, 2006) to pressure firms to be socially responsible (Bhatia & Makkar, 2019). The combination of lax regulatory frameworks (Famiyeh et al., 2021), shared corrupt practices (Transparency International, 2015), political involvement (Mangena & Tauringana, 2007), and inattentive media (Bhatia & Makkar, 2019) may limit incentives for corporations to improve information disclosure (Waweru et al., 2019). In that vein, until SSA promotes institutional reforms to counter corruption (Osei-Assibey et al., 2018), SSA’s open market economy presents an exceptional setting to test Western industrialisation theories in emerging nations (Adomako et al., 2018; Banin et al., 2016) 3. Institutional theory Previous studies have employed Institutional Theory to investigate organisational environmental management (Bansal, 2005; Hoffman, 1999; Yang et al., 2019). Institutional Theory explains the selection of behaviours that do not yield immediate monetary benefits (Meyer & Rowan, 1977,; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). However, there is a lack of experience in applying organisational Theory to sustainability challenges (Caldera et al., 2019; Glover et al., 2014; Wahga et al., 2018). This Theory offers a different theoretical perspective to assess the literature on CSR and environmental management (Frederiksen, 2018; Frederiksen, 2019; Frynas & Stephens, 2015; M. Tran et al., 2021). The institutional Theory offers a logical method and a valuable framework for expanding our understanding of and providing insight into how corporate practises such as CSR reporting are implemented in specific institutional contexts (M. Tran et al., 2021). More so in emerging economies, such as Africa, where sustainability studies are embryonic (Adib & Xianzhi, 2019). The success and survival of an organisation highly depend on how a firm conforms to relevant institutional pressures (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Institutional tendencies drive sustainability disclosures within a sector despite the non-existence of stakeholder threats or legitimacy pressure (Fifka et al., 2018). Also, Neo-institutional Theory explains institutional changes that are institutionally constructed (Clemens & Cook, 1999) in a manner that the conduct and behaviours in Penney et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2207886 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2207886 Page 4 of 19 a setup are primarily homogeneous with the characteristics of members (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Multinationals have similar parental influence emanating from the Western economy. Empirically, Western firms are better reporters of sustainable practices (Bhatia & Makkar, 2019; Kane et al., 2017). Members of the same institution exhibit the same characteristics in isomorphic behaviour. This structural isomorphism in institutions occurs through either mimetic or coercive and normative forces (DiMaggio & Powel, 1991). Uncertainty leads to similar organisations replicating each other. In a mimetic orientation, firms that are unsure of their future are pressured to emulate other comparable member organisations to overcome ambiguity and solve problems by acting as essential representatives who are successful in particular courses of action (Bansal, 2005). Successful organisations employ similar frameworks to replicate their successes. African firms operate in the same weak and fragile regulatory environment (Famiyeh et al., 2021). An insubstantial regulatory climate is a recipe for politically connected firms to thrive to maximise profit (Welsch, 2004). Political connections are valuable in countries with weak institutions and common among larger firms (Faccio, 2006), primarily multinationals in the same organisational environment as local firms. Local firms and multinationals form collaborative groups in institutional and regulatory settings. Members of a joint group copy each other in their disclosure practices. According to institutional Theory, the same socioeconomic and political arrangements impact CSR practices in Africa (Fifka et al., 2018). Given the shared institutional and regulatory environment, local firms and multinationals form a collaborative group and are more likely to become isomorphic (Edwards et al., 2009) to an identical character—suppress quality sustainability practices and uphold the debate that business responsibility must be to enhancing shareholders’ wealth maximisation (Ata Ujan & Ntim, 2019; Friedman, 1970). 4. Empirical literature review and hypothesis development The proponent of Institutional Theory have recently begun to argue for a greater emphasis on the relationship between institutional-level characteristics and CSR practises (Aguilera et al., 2007; Wright et al., 2005). Businesses functioning in identical societal environments tend to acquire similar traits and behavioural standards (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Campbell, 2007; Filatotchev and Nakajima, 2014). Institutional theorists contend that societal standards are the primary influencers of organisational CSR activities (Al-Mamun & Seamer, 2021; Young & Makhija, 2014). From the institutional standpoint, organisations must comply with their given institutional settings to secure a sustainable existence and maximise value (Ioannou & Serafeim, 2012; Campbell, 2007; Matten & Moon, 2008). North (and Doh and Guay (2006) acknowledge the influence of formal institutions, such as laws, rules, and legal agreements, and informal institutions, such as behavioural standards and moral codes. In both formal and informal institutional settings, organisations strive to advance collective interests, frequently to have these interests codified as everyday practices, standard norms or both (Doh and Guay, 2006; Campbell, 2007; Matten & Moon, 2008). Across several economies, formal authority to regulate organisational activity at the institutional level is delegated to various government and regulatory authorities to mandate and enforce laws on organisations within their jurisdiction (Young & Makhija, 2014; Campbell, 2007; Matten & Moon, 2008). Yet, the extent to which regulatory enforcement is congruent with the passed laws determines the amount of compliance with rules and regulations within a specific jurisdiction (Aguilera et al., 2007). According to Young and Makhija (2014) and Lim and Tsutsui (2012), the rule of law is strictest when regulations are visible and practical and regulatory authorities operate within a well-defined legal framework. Extensive studies have established that CSR practices mutually benefit shareholders’ wealth and society (e.g., Lim & Lee, 2022). For this mutual benefit, in most developed settings, sustainability disclosures have been made quasi-mandatory (e.g. Spain, Denmark and large firms in the European Union) (Ackers & Grobbelaar, 2021). Additionally, stringent listing requirements of stock markets tend Penney et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2207886 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2207886 Page 5 of 19 to encourage members to provide sustainability information needs of stakeholders (ACCA, 2014). The UK Corporations Act of 2006 also requires publicly traded companies to include information in their annual business reviews about environmental issues, diversity, the workplace, and the community. The UK plays a significant role in Western cross-country CSR through business relations such as Business in the Community (Chambers et al., 2003). Although no laws govern CSR reporting in the USA, many American businesses report on their social and environmental performance yearly, with an annual growth rate of 37 per cent (Cecil & Mahoney, 2010). Companies disclose substantially to their stakeholders because of the stock market’s relatively high prominence in the USA (Matten & Moon, 2008). The UK and the USA are the yardsticks for measuring CSR in Western countries (Bhatia & Makkar, 2019). These economies adopt an early understanding of the notion that firms ought to engage with community players and execute CSR schemes for the mutual benefit of the public (Lim & Lee, 2022). The USA is considered a pioneer in CSR reporting (Giannarakis, 2014). For these reasons, more excellent CSR practices are fostered in developed nations because of the rule of law, which facilitates recognising and fulfilling legal and nonlegal responsibilities (Chambers et al., 2003). When regulations are not evident, and regulators do not act within a predetermined legal framework, the rule of law suffers, and legal enforcement is ineffective. An unproductive regulatory system is especially prevalent in emerging economies, as weak regulatory mechanisms increase how actors violate policies and laws (Al-Mamun & Seamer, 2021). Emerging economies are associated with political instability, corruption, and lower societal standards making the rule of law less visible (Young & Makhija, 2014). Firms operating in such an environment face lower levels of regulatory pressure to embrace CSR (Young & Makhija, 2014; Campbell, 2007; Matten & Moon, 2008). In emerging economies, the standards and processes that form the backbone of corporate social responsibility in developed countries are less robust (Kemp, 2001). These provide politically connected firms with a valuable tool for circumventing the system (Faccio, 2006) in emerging economies. The level of dedication to which enterprises in different regions embrace the CSR idea and its activities is significantly affected by the regional context, specifically, the convergence of social, political, legal, religious, and economic elements influencing local business practices (C. H. Kim et al., 2013; Chapple & Moon, 2005; Welford, 2005). MNCs and local firms operating in emerging markets function in a common set of less robust institutional standards and processes that form the spine of corporate social responsibility (Kemp, 2001). Institutional theorists emphasise institutional conditions as key CSR drivers, arguing that when firms confront similar institutional pressures, they are more likely to demonstrate homogeneous conduct in their CSR activity (Young & Makhija, 2014; Lim and Tsutsui, 2012). As members of a collaborative group copy each other in their disclosure practices, this study hypothesises that mimetic pressure: H1: In SSA with a shared weak institutional and regulatory environment, MNCs and local firms CSR reporting on governance and management system will show no significant difference H2: In SSA with a shared fragile institutional and regulatory environment, MNCs and local firms CSR reporting on the credibility of CSR initiatives will show no significant difference H3: In SSA with a shared weak institutional and regulatory environment, MNCs and local firms CSR reporting on supportable indicators will show no significant difference H4: In SSA with a shared fragile institutional and regulatory environment, MNCs and local firms CSR reporting on spending and savings arising from sustainability projects will show no significant difference H5: In SSA with a shared weak institutional and regulatory environment, MNCs and local firms CSR reporting on CSR strategy and vision claim will show no significant difference Penney et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2207886 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2207886 Page 6 of 19 H6: In SSA with a shared weak institutional and regulatory environment, MNCs and local firms CSR reporting on CSR internal initiatives will show no significant difference H7: In SSA with a common weak institutional and regulatory environment, MNCs and local firms CSR reporting on disclosure of management approach will show no significant difference 5. Research design and methodology 5.1. Research context This study examines firms sampled in the resource industry. The resource industry is the most reported sustainability issue (Cho et al., 2015; Aggarwal & Singh, 2018) due to its intense impact on the physical environment. Primarily, industry players extract wasting non-renewable assets (Cowell et al., 1999), intensely subject the physical environment to biodiversity imbalance, and emit effluents and atmospheric toxins that deplete the ozone layer. Owing to these devastating environmental effects, resource industry players are subject to environmental regulations and institutions. Environmental regulations and institutions’ requirement is a recipe for making regulators and institutions critical to this study. This study uses the Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (Global Reporting Initiative, 2000–2011) to compare MNCs and local firms in seven (7) basic sustainability performances. The seven essential CSR disclosure issues for comparison are (1) governance structure and sustainable development management; (2) credibility given to sustainability-related initiatives; (3) verifiable sustainability performance metrics; (4) details on financial expenditures and savings; (5) top-level management’s sustainability vision and adopted strategy as communicated to the reporting entity’s stakeholders; (6) disclosures on the company’s internal programs that recognise and reward staff members for their contributions to achieving sustainability objectives; and (7) disclosures on approach management deployed towards running the future economy, society, and the environment. The Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI)-derived checklist guided the study. The deployed seven sustainability principles are GRI fundamental initiatives with the strength of coverage, ensuring that all companies need to know and practice to protect the ecosystem. The framework has gained popularity in sustainability reporting over the years globally. It is the most commonly used sustainability reporting framework worldwide (Karagiannis et al., 2019) adopted to analyse the extent of firms’ disclosures. Due to weak institutions and a poor regulatory environment (Famiyeh et al., 2021), sustainability reporting in the sub-region is highly voluntary. Enterprises fail to entirely reveal the occurrences exclusive to the reporting year in question, especially website publications that are not year-specific yet form a large proportion of CSR disclosures (Beck et al., 2018). Only a few firms have comprehensive progress reports on sustainability, especially in Africa, which limits sustainability reporting data (Tilt et al., 2021) to warrant a panel approach. The analysis was limited to a single year of data, similar to contemporary research on sustainability (see, e.g., Beck et al., 2018; Sinthupundaja et al., 2018; Tilt et al., 2021). Data was obtained by scoring companies’ sustainability disclosures in their audited annual reports and standalone sustainability reports for the year ending 31 December 2017. 5.2. Sampling and data collection To obtain a sample representing the entire SSA in the ESI, this study sampled from ten stock markets (Ghana, Nigeria, Ivory Coast, South Africa, Kenya, Mauritius, Tanzania, Zambia, Botswana and Swaziland) that pride in MNCs. ESI firms are (1) the Manufacturing industry whose operations span two significant areas—those that produce natural products and those that process them. (2) Mining, a single central group, with few other firms in exploration. (3) Energy, one major group (oil and gas firms). In that regard, sampled companies were 65 manufacturing firms, 40 mining firms, and 30 energy firms, totalling 135 firms. The study grouped sampled firms into (1) 41 multinationals with external influence or listings, in addition to listing on any African stock markets. (2) 94 exclusively African or listed firms. Africa-based firms are listed only on African stock markets. A firm qualifies as part of the study population if listed on any African stock market. Further listing Penney et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2207886 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2207886 Page 7 of 19 that is not the case in this study. Findings by M. Tran et al. (2021) that efforts to implement recommended governance norms through institutional reforms may be futile in non-Western environments are supported in this study. Matten and Moon (2008) demonstrated that CSR is contextual. Given the shared institutional and regulatory environment and the same socioeconomic and political arrangements impact CSR practices in Africa (Fifka et al., 2018), local firms and multinationals have become isomorphic (Edwards et al., 2009) to an identical characterlow and equal CSR reporters. In a traditionally based economy such as Africa, the private sector drives development, expansion, and advancement (sustainable development) (Rashed & Shah, 2021). Founding family members usually lead companies in the private sector. Certainly, CSR performance will be poorer for family-led compared with nonfamily-led organisations (N. M. Tran & Nguyen, 2022). Family directors keep in touch with influential members of the ruling parties and other significant constituencies to favour curry as part of their plan to manage their stakeholder relationships. CSR practices in developing economies are “interpersonal” in that they surface from social relations and agree with sociocultural values and norms (Forcadell & Aracil, 2017; Jamali & Karam, 2018). These forms of relational CSR practices aim to improve the lives of the most marginalised members of African society through initiatives such as scholarships for academically gifted students and programs for economically underprivileged people, such as beggars, acid victims, and transgender people. The need to, at most, maintain and strengthen relationships with the local population may explain why multinationals do not exceed their local counterparts in sustainability practices and reporting following GRI’s green initiatives (CSR practice). The inevitable conclusion is that the directors and management of multinational corporations exploit weak regulatory regimes in their never-ending pursuit of capital accumulation (wealth maximisation). Stakeholders, the intended CSR beneficiaries, are made more vulnerable due to this exploitation, which indicates the capitalist system. A shared sense of decency, compassion, and social responsibility should establish legal protection of CSR practices. Greed, individuality, power, and self-interest dominate when a social system is established. The resource industry is highly regulated because of the intense impact of its activities on the physical environment. Environmental regulations aim to enforce mandatory standards when regulators issue CSR guidelines. Nonetheless, company executives successfully negotiate sufficient leeway to follow the principles, with the relevant regulators admitting that optional adoption is required. Both multinational and local businesses are not merely passive actors carrying out CSR operations to satisfy CSR rules; instead, they actively bargain and negotiate environmental regulations. Institutional studies before this also emphasised the importance of creating a negotiated appearance in their surroundings (e.g., Julian et al., 2008). CSR is a function of economic wealth (Al-Mamun & Seamer, 2021), so it is more prevalent in the developed Western world, where firms are more stable and prosperous (Chambers et al., 2003; Chapple & Moon, 2005). In emerging economies, multinationals are primarily the beneficiaries of weak institutions (Faccio, 2006). They must be in a more prosperous position to give back to society with better CSR-reporting practices than their local counterparts. The practically moderate significance difference in vision and strategy claims (Vis_stra) disclosures between multinationals and local firms is merely an assertion. Typically, the chief executive officer comments on a firm’s sustainability performance in a letter to the company’s shareholders or stakeholders. They proclaim the firm’s policy on sustainability as well as its beliefs, principles, and codes of behaviour, and they indicate how the company intends to conduct frequent assessments and evaluate its performance with sustainability. However, global companies have not implemented these goals and strategies. Multinationals have failed to implement these visions and strategies. Otherwise, the effect of implementation would have resulted in multinationals distinguishing themselves from local firms in other areas of sustainability reporting. Penney et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2207886 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2207886 Page 14 of 19 Earlier research findings that firms in Western economies are better at sustainability reporting than those in emerging economies (Bhatia & Makkar, 2019; Kane et al., 2017) is a result of the research design. Comparing firms operating in different contextual environments could explain the observed differences. Placing multinationals and local firms in the same setting yields different results, as in the case of emerging markets, such as sub-Saharan Africa. 6.3. Sensitivity analysis To determine the robustness of our finding (equal CSR reporting by MNCs and local firms), we assessed the sensitivity of our results along one dimension: the pattern of CSR disclosure deviations from the mean CSR disclosure at the aggregate level for the two independent groups (MNCs and local firms). The study examined whether there is any significant difference in variance around the mean for the separate groups (MNCs and local firms) CSR disclosures. We used the FlignerKilleen test to assess variance homogeneity. The Fligner-Killeen test is a robust non-parametric test deployed to evaluate the homogeneity of variance between groups when the variable of interest (total CSR disclosure) deviates from normality (Giacomini et al., 2021). The null hypothesis was that there is equality of variance between MNCs and local firms on total CSR disclosure (aggregate disclosure). The test results have a p-value of 0.085. At a significance level of 0.05, the study fails to reject the null hypothesis. Thus there is equality of variance between MNCs and local firms on total CSR disclosure. This results in the same pattern of findings. The findings show that the entire CSR disclosure of MNCs is not significantly different from that of local firms when both groups operate in a shared contextual environment. 7. Conclusions Comparative studies of Western economies and emerging market firms are familiar in prior studies. However, comparing the two groups of firms doing business in the same weak institutional dispensation is exceptional. Especially where environmental regulations seemingly mandate firms in the resource industry to be socially and environmentally responsible, it is unique and provides novel implications than previous studies. These findings support Institutional Theory and add a new dimension to the extant literature by validating the hypothesised relationship. More specifically, the study partially rejects Western firms’ better sustainability reporting tendencies than emerging economies. When both Western and local firms operate in a joint contextual arrangement, the two groups have no significant difference in CSR reporting. Second, using data from emerging markets and developing economies like SSA can help researchers uncover key sustainability differences from different perspectives. Thus, we create data in a CSR-relevant setting of interest to diverse researchers and build a theory-based understanding of CSR’s nature and significance in Sub-Saharan Africa’s institutional framework. Third, the expectations concerning institutional context-CSR reporting and the possible pressures for CEOs and investors who plan to diversify globally, especially to a continent like SSA, will likely be confronted with. Consequentially, an institutional quality that drives CSR (Al-Mamun & Seamer, 2021), regulators and policymakers could strengthen these institutions and make them independent This study is not without limitations. First, the study sampled resource industry firms listed in the African sub-region. CSR reporting is mainly voluntary; however, institutions are essential in this research. The ESI environmental regulations make CSR reporting partially mandatory; hence, sectorial institutions’ vigilance is significant. Consequently, these results should interpret within this limit. Future research could use information from the broader sector and region and expand on this study’s theme to cover other industries. Second, the investigation centred around 2017; therefore, the endorsement of the results of prior periods might require additional verification if a methodological arrangement can enhance the separation of each year’s exclusive data, especially website data, which forms an integral part of this study. Finally, the number of resource industry firms and multinationals will increase due to globalisation. A comparative study between emerging markets multinationals and their parent counterparts operating in the Western world might explore variations between these two environmental settings and provide specific additional implications accordingly.Fftotchev and Nakajima (2014). Corporate governance, responsible Penney et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2207886 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2207886 Page 15 of 19 managerial behaviour, and corporate social responsibility: organisational efficiency versus legitimacy? Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(3), 289–306 Author details Emmanuel Kofi Penney 1 E-mail: [email protected] Anthony Owusu-Ansah 2 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2373-7550 Godfred Amewu 3 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6721-5909 Randolph Nsor-Ambala 4 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0771-3172 1 Department of Accounting, Faculty of Accounting and Finance, University of Professional Studies, Accra, Ghana. 2 Department of Land Economy, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana. 3 Business School, University of Ghana, Legon Accra. 4 Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA), School of Business, Accra, Ghana. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Citation information Cite this article as: Do firms operating in a shared institutional environment have similar sustainability disclosure practices? A comparative analysis of multinational and locally listed firms in Africa, Emmanuel Kofi Penney, Anthony Owusu-Ansah, Godfred Amewu & Randolph Nsor-Ambala, Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2207886. References ACCA. (2014). “Stock exchanges in Sub-Saharan Africa: Capturing intent towards ESG requirements. Available at: http://graduate.accaglobal.com/gb/en/ technical-activities/technical-resource-search/2014/ july/stoch-exchanges-in-Sub-Saharan-africa.html (Retrieved October , 2019). Acemoglu, D., Gallego, F. A., & Robinson, J. A. (2014). Institutions, human capital, and development. Annual Review of Economics, 6(1), 875–912. https:// doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080213-041119 Ackers, B., & Grobbelaar, S. E. (2021). The impact of the integrated reporting framework on Corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosures–the case of South African mining companies. Social Responsibility Journal, 18(6), 1106–1127. https://doi.org/10.1108/ SRJ-12-2020-0508 Acutt, N. J., Medina-ross, V., & O’Riordan, T. (2004). Perspectives on corporate social responsibility in the chemical sector: A comparative analysis of the Mexican and South African cases. Natural Resources Forum, 28(4), 302–316. November, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947. 2004.00103.x Adelle, C., Weiland, S., Dick, J., González Olivo, D., Marquardt, J., Rots, G., Wübbeke, J., & Zasada, I. (2016). Regulatory impact assessment: A survey of selected developing and emerging economies. Public Money & Management, 36(2), 89–96. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09540962.2016.1118930 Adib, M., & Xianzhi, Z. (2019). Board characteristics and corporate social performance nexus-a multi-theoretical analysis-evidence from South Africa. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 21 (1), 24–38. Adomako, S., Opoku, R. A., & Frimpong, K. (2018). Entrepreneurs’ improvisational behaviour and new venture performance: Firm-level and institutional contingencies. Journal of Business Research, 83(1), 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.10.006 Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organisations. Academy of Management Review, 32 (3), 836–863. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007. 25275678 Ahunwan, B. (2002). Corporate governance in Nigeria. Journal of Business Ethics, 37(3), 269–287. https://doi. org/10.1023/A:1015212332653 Al-Mamun, A., & Seamer, M. (2021). The influence of institutional qualities on CSR engagement: A comparison of developed and developing economies. Meditari Accountancy Research, 30(1), 94–120. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-02-20200768 Amao, O. O. (2008). Corporate social responsibility, multinational corporations and the law in Nigeria: Controlling multinationals in host states. Journal of African Law, 52(1), 89–113. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0021855308000041 Aracil, E. (2019). Corporate social responsibility of Islamic and conventional banks: The influence of institutions in emerging countries. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 14(4), 582–600. https://doi.org/10. 1108/IJOEM-12-2017-0533 Ata Ujan, A., & Ntim, C. G. (2019). CSR symbolic potential and business sustainability. Cogent Business & Management, 6(1), 1699299. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 23311975.2019.1699299 Atuguba, R., & Dowuona-Hammond, C. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in Ghana. A report to (FESfoundation), Banin, A. Y., Boso, N., Hultman, M., Souchon, A. L., Hughes, P., & Nemkova, E. (2016). Salesperson improvisation: Antecedents, performance outcomes, and boundary conditions. Industrial Marketing Management, 59, 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. indmarman.2016.02.007 Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of Corporate sustainable Development. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 197–218. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.441 Beck, C., Frost, G., & Jones, S. (2018). CSR disclosure and financial performance revisited: A cross-country analysis. Australian Journal of Management, 43(4), 517–537. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0312896218771438 Bhatia, A., & Makkar, B. (2019). CSR disclosure in developing and developed countries: A comparative study. Journal of Global Responsibility, 11(1), 1–26. https:// doi.org/10.1108/JGR-04-2019-0043 Bhattacharya, M., Churchill, S. A., & Paramati, S. R. (2017). The dynamic impact of renewable energy and institutions on economic output and CO2 emissions across regions. Renewable Energy, 111, 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.03.102 Bianchi, M. T., Monteiro, P., Azevedo, G., Oliveira, J., Viana, R. C., & Branco, M. C. (2019). Political connections and corporate social responsibility reporting in Portugal. Journal of Financial Crime, 26(4), 1203–1215. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-10-2018-0111 Bishoge, O. K., Kombe, G. G., & Mvile, B. N. (2020). Renewable energy for sustainable development in Sub-Saharan African countries: Challenges and the way forward. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Penney et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2207886 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2207886 Page 16 of 19 Energy, 12(5), 052702. https://doi.org/10.1063/5. 0009297 Braam, G., & Peeters, R. (2018). Corporate sustainability performance and assurance on sustainability reports: Diffusion of accounting practices in sustainable development. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(2), 164–181. https:// doi.org/10.1002/csr.1447 Caldera, H. T. S., Desha, C., & Dawes, L. (2019). Evaluating the enablers and barriers for successful implementation of sustainable business practice in ‘lean’ SMEs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 218, 575–590. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.239 Campbell, L. (2007). Why Would Corporations Behave in Socially Responsible Ways? An Institutional Theory of Corporate Social Responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946–967. Cavalcanti Sá Abreu, M., & Barlow, C. (2013). A comparative picture of corporate social responsibility approaches by leading companies in the United Kingdom and Brazil. Social Responsibility Journal, 9 (4), 571–588. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-04-20120046 Cecil, L., & Mahoney, L. (2010). Corporate social responsibility reporting in the United States. McNair Scholars Research Journal, 1(1), 42–52. Chambers, E., Chapple, W., Moon, J., & Sullivan, M. (2003). CSR in Asia: A seven country study of CSR website reporting. No. 09-2003 ICCSR Research Paper Series – ISSN, 1479–5124. Chapple, W., & Moon, J. (2005). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Asia: A seven-country study of CSR website reporting. Business & Society, 44(4), 415–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650305281658 Cho, C. H. (2020). CSR accounting ‘new wave’researchers: ‘step up to the plate’ . . . or ‘stay out of the game. Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems, 19(4), 626–650. https://doi.org/10.24818/ jamis.2020.04001 Clarkson, P., Li, Y., Richardson, G., & Vasvari, F. (2008). Revisiting the relationship between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4–5), 303–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. aos.2007.05.003 Clemens, E. S., & Cook, J. M. (1999). Politics and Institutionalism: Explaining durability and change. Annual Review of Sociology, 25(1), 441–466. https:// doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.441 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cowell, S. J., Wehrmeyer, W., Argust, W. P., & Robertson, J. G. S. (1999). Sustainability and the primary extraction industries: Theories and practice. Resources Policy, 25(4), 277–286. https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0301-4207(00)00003-9 DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality. In P. DiMaggio, W. I. D. Powell, & P. PJ (Eds), WW The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago and London. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organisational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/2095101 Doh, J. P., & Guay, T. R. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, public policy, and NGO activism in Europe and the United States: An institutional-stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 47–73. Edwards, J., Mason, D. S., & Washington, M. (2009). Institutional pressures, government funding, and provincial sports organisations. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 6(2), 128–149. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSMM.2009.028798 El-Bassiouny, D., & El-Bassiouny, N. (2019). Diversity, corporate governance and CSR reporting: A comparative analysis between top-listed firms in Egypt, Germany and the USA. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 30(1), 116–136. Environmental Protection Agency. (2002). A national action program to combat drought and desertification. EPA, Accra. Faccio, M. (2006). Politically connected firms. The American Economic Review, 96(1), 369–386. https:// doi.org/10.1257/000282806776157704 Famiyeh, S., Opoku, R. A., Kwarteng, A., & Asante Darko, D. (2021). Driving forces of sustainability in the mining industry: Evidence from a developing country. Resources Policy, 70, 101910. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.resourpol.2020.101910 Fatima, M. (2017). A comparative study of CSR in Pakistan! Asian Journal of Business Ethics, 6(1), 81–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13520-017-0074-x Fftotchev, I., & Nakajima, C. (2014). Corporate governance, responsible managerial behaviour, and corporate social responsibility: Organisational efficiency versus legitimacy? Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(3), 289–306. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage. Fifka, M. S., Kühn, A. L., & Stiglbauer, M. (2018). One size fits all”? Convergence in international corporate social responsibility communication: A comparative study of CSR mission statements in the United States and India. Journal of Public Affairs, 18(3), e1670. Filatotchev, I., & Nakajima, C. (2014). Corporate Governance, Responsible Managerial Behavior, and Corporate Social Responsibility: Organizational Efficiency versus Organizational Legitimacy?. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(3), 289– 306. Forcadell, F. J., & Aracil, E. (2017). Sustainable banking in Latin American developing countries: Leading to (mutual) prosperity. Business Ethics: A European Review, 26(4), 382–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer. 12161 Frederiksen, T. (2018). Corporate social responsibility, risk and development in the mining industry. Resources Policy, 59, 495–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resour pol.2018.09.004 Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits [in] New York Times Magazine, 1970. 13 September, 33. Frynas, J. G., & Stephens, S. (2015). Political, corporate social responsibility: Reviewing theories and setting new agendas. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(4), 483–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr. 12049 Giacomini, D., Rocca, L., Zola, P., & Mazzoleni, M. (2021). Local Governments’ environmental disclosure via social networks: Organisational legitimacy and Stakeholders’ Interactions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 317, 128290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2021.128290 Giannarakis, G. (2014). The determinants influencing the extent of CSR Disclosure. International Journal of Law and Management, 56(5), 393–416. https://doi.org/10. 1108/IJLMA-05-2013-0021 Glover, J. L., Champion, D., Daniels, K. J., & Dainty, A. J. (2014). An Institutional Theory perspectives on Penney et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2207886 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2207886 Page 17 of 19 sustainable practices across the dairy supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 152, 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.12.027 Hanson, S. (2009). Corruption in Sub-Saharan Africa. Council on Foreign Relations. Hoffman, A. J. (1999). Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.2307/257008 Hoskisson, R. E., Eden, L., Lau, C. M., & Wright, M. (2000). Strategy in emerging economies. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 249–267. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/1556394 Hosseini, H. M., & Kaneko, S. (2013). Can environmental quality spread through institutions? Energy Policy, 56, 312–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.12.067 Ho, S. S., & Wong, K. S. (2001). A Study of corporate disclosure practice and effectiveness in Hong Kong. Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting, 12(1), 75–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 1467-646X.00067 Hummel, K., & Schlick, C. (2016). The relationship between sustainability performance and sustainability disclosure–Reconciling voluntary disclosure theory and legitimacy theory. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 35(5), 455–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc pubpol.2016.06.001 Husted, B. W., & Allen, D. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in the multinational enterprise: Strategic and institutional approaches. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 838–849. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400227 Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2012). What drives corporate social performance? The role of nation-level institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(9), 834–864. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2012.26 Jain, A., Keneley, M., & Thomson, D. (2015). Voluntary CSR disclosure works! Evidence from Asia-Pacific banks. Social Responsibility Journal, 11(1), 2–18. https://doi. org/10.1108/SRJ-10-2012-0136 Jamali, D., & Karam, C. (2018). Corporate social responsibility in developing countries as an emerging field of study. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(1), 32–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr. 12112 Julian, S. D., & Ofori-dankwa, J. C. (2013). Financial resource availability and corporate social responsibility expenditures in a sub-Saharan economy: The institutional difference hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 34(11), 1314–1330. https://doi. org/10.1002/smj.2070 Julian, S. D., Ofori-dankwa, J. C., & Justis, R. T. (2008). Understanding strategic responses to interest group pressures. Strategic Management Journal, 29(9), 963–984. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.698 Kane, V., Dikeç, A., & Park, J. Y. (2017). Cross-national CSR web reporting: A comparative analysis of multinational corporations in the US and South Korea. Review of Pacific Basin Financial Markets and Policies, 20(1), 1750001. https://doi.org/10.1142/ S0219091517500011 Karagiannis, I., Vouros, P., Skouloudis, A., & Evangelinos, K. (2019). Sustainability reporting, materiality, and accountability assessment in the airport industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(7), 1370–1405. https://doi.org/10. 1002/bse.2321 Karyawati, P. G., Subroto, B., Sutrisno, T., & Saraswati, E. (2020). Explaining the complex relationship of CSR and financial performance using neo-institutional Theory. Journal of Asian Business and Economic Studies, 27(3), 227–244. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JABES-10-2019-0106 Kemp, M. (2001). Corporate social responsibility in Indonesia: Quixotic dream or confident expectation? Technology, business & society, [programme paper no. 6]. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. Khan, H. Z., Bose, S., Sheehy, B., & Quazi, A. (2021). Green banking disclosure, firm value and the moderating role of a contextual factor: Evidence from a distinctive regulatory setting. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(8), 3651–3670. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/bse.2832 Khan, A., Muttakin, M. B., & Siddiqui, J. (2013). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosures: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(2), 207–223. Kim, C. H., Amaeshi, K., Harris, S., & Suh, C. J. (2013). CSR and the national institutional context: The case of South Korea. Journal of Business Research, 66(12), 2581–2591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012. 05.015 Kim, J., & Jeon, Y. (2015). Dividend policy and corporate social responsibility: A comparative analysis of multinational enterprise subsidiaries and domestic firms in Korea. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 51(2), 306–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496X.2015. 1021605 Lim, A., & Tsutsui, K. (2012). Globalization and commitment in corporate social responsibility: Crossnational analyses of institutional and political-economy effects. American sociological review, 77(1), 69– 98. Lim, A., & Tsutsui, K. (2012). Globalization and commitment in corporate social responsibility: Crossnational analyses of institutional and political-economy effects. American Sociological Review, 77(1), 69– 98. Ling, Y. H. (2019). Examining green policy and sustainable development from the perspective of differentiation and strategic alignment. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(6), 1096–1106. Liu, X., Liu, B., Shishime, T., Yu, Q., Bi, J., & Fujitsuka, T. (2010). An empirical study on the driving mechanism of proactive corporate environmental management in China. Journal of Environmental Management, 91 (8), 1707–1717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman. 2010.03.011 Mangena, M., & Tauringana, V. (2007). Disclosure, corporate governance and foreign share ownership on the Zimbabwe stock exchange. Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting, 18(2), 53–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-646X.2007.01008.x Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). Implicit“and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404–424. https://doi. org/10.5465/amr.2008.31193458 Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalised organisations: Formal structure as myth and Ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550 Midttun, A., Gautesen, K., Gjølberg, M., & Lenssen, G. (2006). The political economy of CSR in Western Europe. Corporate Governance the International Journal of Business in Society, 6(4), 369–385. https:// doi.org/10.1108/14720700610689496 Muthuri, J. N., & Gilbert, V. (2011). An institutional analysis of corporate social responsibility in Kenya. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(3), 467–483. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10551-010-0588-9 Penney et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2207886 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2207886 Page 18 of 19 Narwal, M., & Singh, R. (2013). Corporate social responsibility practices in India: A comparative study of MNCs and Indian companies. Social Responsibility Journal, 9 (3), 465–478. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-11-20110100 Nobanee, H., & Ellili, N. (2016). Corporate sustainability disclosure in annual reports: Evidence from UAE banks: Islamic versus conventional. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 55, 1336–1341. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.084 Ong, T., Trireksani, T., & Djajadikerta, H. G. (2016). Hard and soft sustainability disclosures: Australia’s resources industry. Accounting Research Journal, 29(2), 198–217. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARJ-03-2015-0030 Osei-Assibey, E., Domfeh, K. O., & Danquah, M. (2018). Corruption, institutions and capital flight: Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Economic Studies, 45(1), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1108/JES-102016-0212 Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS Survival Manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS (5th ed.). Allen & Unwin. Panayiotou, N. A., Aravossis, K. G., & Moschou, P. (2009). Greece: A comparative study of CSR reports. In Idowu, S.O., & Filho, W.L, (Eds.), Global practices of corporate social responsibility (pp. 149–164). Springer. Rashed, A. H., & Shah, A. (2021). The role of the private sector in the implementation of sustainable development goals. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23(3), 2931–2948. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10668-020-00718-w Saddiq, S. A., & Abu Bakar, A. S. (2019). Impact of economic and financial crimes on economic growth in emerging and developing countries: A systematic review. Journal of Financial Crime, 26(3), 910–920. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-10-2018-0112 Salazar, R. J., Wang, J., Rauniar, R., Wang, X., & RatajczakMrozek, M. (2018). A game analysis of MNC CSR in China. Cogent Business & Management, 5(1), 1409685. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2017.1409685 Simnett, R., Vanstraelen, A., & Chua, W. F. (2009). Assurance on sustainability reports: An international comparison. The Accounting Review, 84(3), 937–967. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2009.84.3.937 Sinthupundaja, J., Chiadamrong, N., & Kohda, Y. (2018). Internal capabilities, external cooperation and proactive CSR on financial performance. The Service Industries Journal, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02642069.2018.1508459 Tilt, C. A., Qian, W., Kuruppu, S., & Dissanayake, D. (2021). The state of business sustainability reporting in Sub-Saharan Africa: An agenda for policy and practice. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 12(2), 267–296. https://doi.org/10. 1108/SAMPJ-06-2019-0248 Tran, M., Beddewela, E., & Ntim, C. G. (2021). Governance and Sustainability in Southeast Asia. Accounting Research Journal, 34(6), 516–545. https://doi.org/10. 1108/ARJ-05-2019-0095 Tran, N. M., & Nguyen, T. H. (2022). Women’s leadership and SMEs’ CSR performance: Family versus nonfamily firms. Cogent Business & Management, 9(1), 2157973. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022. 2157973 Transparency International (2015), 2014 Corruption Perception Index, available at: www.transparency. org/country/ (Retrieved November 15, 2022). Tricker, R. I. (2012). The evolution of corporate governance. In D. Branson & Clarke T. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Corporate Governance. SAGE, UK Tuokuu, F. X. D., Idemudia, U., Gruber, J. S., & Kayira, J. (2019). Identifying and clarifying environmental policy best practices for the mining industry–A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 222, 922–933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03. 111 Vilar, V. H., & Simão, J. (2015). CSR disclosure on the web: Major themes in the banking Sector. International Journal of Social Economics, 42(3), 296–318. https:// doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-10-2013-0240 Wahga, A. I., Blundel, R., & Schaefer, A. (2018). Understanding the drivers of sustainable entrepreneurial practices in Pakistan’s leather industry: A multilevel approach. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 24(2), 382–407. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-11-20150263 Waweru, N., Mangena, M., & Riro, G. (2019). Corporate governance and corporate internet reporting in subSaharan Africa: The case of Kenya and Tanzania. Corporate Governance. The International Journal of Business in Society, 19(4), 751–773. Welford, R. (2005). Corporate social responsibility in Europe, North America and Asia. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2005(17), 33–52. https://doi. org/10.9774/GLEAF.4700.2005.sp.00007 Welsch, H. (2004). Corruption, growth, and the environment: A cross-country Analysis. Environment and Development Economics, 9(5), 663–693. https://doi. org/10.1017/S1355770X04001500 World Bank Group. (2017),Doing Business Report. A world bank group flagship report, available at: www.doing business.org//media/WBG/DoingBusiness/ Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., Hoskisson, R. E., & Peng, M. W. (2005). Strategy research in emerging economies: Challenging the conventional wisdom. Journal of Management Studies, 42(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00487.x Yang, Y., Lau, A., Lee, P., Yeung, A., & Cheng, T. (2019). Efficacy of China’s strategic environmental management in its institutional environment. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 39 (1), 138–163. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-112017-0695 Young, S. L., & Makhija, M. V. (2014). Firms’ corporate social responsibility behavior: An integration of institutional and profit maximization approaches. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(6), 670–698. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2014.29 Zhang, K. M., & Wen, Z. G. (2008). Review and challenges of policies of environmental protection and sustainable development in China. Journal of Environmental Management, 88(4), 1249–1261. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jenvman.2007.06.019 Penney et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2207886 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2207886 Page 19 of 19