Relationship between environmental pressure and environmental disclosure in the sustainability reports of banks

  • Received June 13, 2017;
    Accepted July 12, 2017;
    Published October 11, 2017
  • Author(s)
    Nyiko D. Mchavi ,
    Collins C. Ngwakwe
    ORCID
  • DOI
    http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ee.08(3-1).2017.03
  • Article Info
    Volume 8 2017, Issue #3, pp. 111-118
  • TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ
  • Cited by
    1 articles
  • 886 Views
  • 193 Downloads

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

This research evaluates the role of environmental pressure on the extend of environmental disclosure of South African banks. Although much research on corporate sustainability disclosure exists, this research is unique since little of the previous research in South Africa has given a closer examination of environmental pressure implication on the banking sector environmental disclosure. Research data were collected from secondary source, which are available from the sustainability reports of the sample of banks. Data were arranged and analyzed by means of the panel data multiple regression. Findings from the analysis showed that none of the seven environmental pressure variables had a significant relationship with banks’ environmental disclosure, which confirms assertion in the literature that banks are not much concerned with environmental issues. In conclusion, the research made some recommendations, which include that future researchers should expand the number of banks by including other financial institutions. Additionally, more research should be conducted to ascertain why external pressure is not very effective in motivating banks’ environmental disclosure as found in this study. Hence, the suggested question for further research is “what motivates bank’s environmental disclosure” and “do banks internalize or externalize their environmental costs”.

view full abstract hide full abstract
    • Table 1. Regression output on the test of hypothesis model 2: fixed-effects, using 18 observations included 3 cross-sectional units time-series length = 6 dependent variable: EnvirDiscl
    • Table 2. Normality and heteroskedasticity result
    • Adams, C. A. (2004). The ethical, environmental reporting-performance portrayal gap. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 17(5), 731-757.
    • Amran, A., & Haniffa, R. (2011). Evidence in development of sustainability reporting: acase of a developing country. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(3), 141-156.
    • Arnold, M. C., Bassen, A., & Frank, R. (2013). Integrating sustainability reports into financial statements: an experimental study.
    • Boiral, O., & Heras-Saizarbitoria, I. (2015). Managing Biodiversity Through Stakeholder Involvement: Why, Who, and for What Initiatives? Journal of Business Ethics, 1-19.
    • Barbu, E. M., Dumontier, P., Feleagă, N., & Feleagă, L. (2014). Mandatory Environmental Disclosures by Companies Complying with IASs/IFRSs: The Cases of France, Germany, and the UK. The International Journal of Accounting, 49(2), 231-247.
    • Brennan, N. M., & Merkl-Davies, D. M. (2014). Rhetoric and argument in environmental reporting: The Dirty Laundry case. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(4), 1-1.
    • Canham, C. D. W., Cole, J., & Lauenroth, W. K. (Eds.). (2003). Models in ecosystem science. Princeton:Princeton University Press.
    • Cho, C. H., & Patten, D. M. (2013). Green accounting: reflections from a CSR and environmental disclosure perspective. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24(6), 443-447.
    • Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE Publications: London.
    • De Villiers, C., Rinaldi, L., & Unerman, J. (2014). Integrated Reporting: Insights, gaps and an agenda for future research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(7), 1042-1067.
    • Dingwerth, K., & Eichinger, M. (2014). Tamed Transparency and the Global Reporting Initiative: The Role of Information Infrastructures. Transparency in Global Environmental Governance: Critical Perspectives, 225. MIT Press: Massachusetts.
    • Epstein, M. J., & Buhovac, A. R. (2014). Making sustainability work: Best practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental, and economic impacts. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
    • Font, X., Guix, M., & Bonilla-Priego, M. J. (2016). Corporate social responsibility in cruising: Using materiality analysis to create shared value. Tourism Management, 53, 175-186.
    • Glozer, S., Caruana, R., & Hibbert, S. A. (2014). Constructing Legitimacy in Online Corporate Social Responsibility Communication. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, 15051.
    • Hogarth, K., Hutchinson, M., & Scaife, W. (2016). Corporate Philanthropy, Reputation Risk Management and Shareholder Value: A Study of Australian Corporate giving. Journal of Business Ethics.
    • Hahn, R., & Kühnen, M. (2013). Determinants of sustainability reporting: A review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. Journal of cleaner production, 59, 5-21.
    • Hahn, R., & Lülfs, R. (2014). Legitimizing negative aspects in GRI-oriented sustainability reporting: A qualitative analysis of corporate disclosure strategies. Journal of business ethics, 123(3), 401-420.
    • Hassan, A., & Ibrahim, E. (2012). Corporate environmental information disclosure: factors influencing companies’ success in attaining environmental awards. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 19(1), 32-46.
    • Ihlen, Ø., & Roper, J. (2014). Corporate reports on sustainability and sustainable development:‘We Have Arrived’. Sustainable development, 22(1), 42-51.
    • James, M. L. (2015). Advantages and Disadvantages Of Sustainablity Reporting: A Study Exploring Accounting Majors’ perceptions. Proceedings of Allied Academies International Conference. Academy of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 19(1), 8. Jordan Whitney Enterprises, Inc.
    • JSE (2014). JSE investor briefing.
    • Kolk, A., & Levy, D. (2001). Winds of Change: Corporate Strategy, Climate change and Oil Multinationals. European Management Journal, 19(5), 501-509.
    • Kolk, A., & Perego, P. (2010). Determinants of the adoption of sustainability assurance statements: An international investigation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(3), 182-198.
    • Ledoux, M. J., Cormier, D., & Houle, S. (2014). Customer Value Disclosure and Analyst Forecasts: The Influence of Environmental Dynamism. Management Decision, 52(3), 3-13.
    • Legendre, S., & Coderre, F. (2013). Determinants of GRI G3 application levels: the case of the fortune global 500. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20(3), 182-192.
    • Llena, F., Monveva, J. M., & Hernandez, B. (2007). Environmental disclosures and compulsory accounting standards: the case of Spanish annual reports. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16(1), 50-63
    • Mallin, C., Michelon, G., & Raggi, D. (2013). Monitoring Intensity and Stakeholders’ Orientation: How Does Governance Affect Environmental Disclosure? Journal of business ethics, 114(1), 29-43.
    • Manetti, G., & Toccafondi, S. (2014). Defining the Content of Sustainability Reports in Nonprofit Organisations: Do Stakeholders Really Matter? Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 26(1), 35-61.
    • Meng, X. H., Zeng, S. X., & Tam, C. M. (2013). From voluntarism to regulation: A study on ownership, economic performance and corporate environmental information disclosure in China. Journal of business ethics, 116(1), 217-232.
    • Meng, X. H., Zeng, S. X., Shi, J. J., Qi, G. Y., & Zhang, Z. B. (2014). The relationship between corporate environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical study in China. Journal of environmental management, 145, 357-367.
    • 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.
    • Naimi, A. (2011). Sustainability Issues in the Petroleum Refining Industry: A Case Study of Shell. Otago Management Graduate Review, 9, 93-113.
    • Orsato, R. J., De Campos, J. G. F., Barakat, S. R., Nicolletti, M., & Monzoni, M. (2015). Why join a carbon club? A study of the banks participating in the Brazilian “Business for Climate Platform”. Journal of Cleaner Production, 96, 387-396.
    • Peters, G. F., & Romi, A. M. (2013). Does the voluntary adoption of corporate governance mechanisms improve environmental risk disclosures? Evidence from greenhouse gas emission accounting. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-30.
    • Sen, A. (2013). The ends and means of sustainability. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 14(1), 6-20.
    • Soltani, B., & Maupetit, C. (2014). Importance of core values of ethics, integrity and accountability in the European corporate governance codes. Journal of Management & Governance, 1-26.
    • Stubbs, W., & Higgins, C. (2014). Integrated Reporting and internal mechanisms of change. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(7), 1068-1089.
    • Stubbs, W., Higgins, C., & Milne, M. (2013). Why do companies not produce sustainability reports? Business Strategy and the Environment, 22(7), 456-470.
    • Talbot, D., & Boiral, O. (2014). Strategies for climate change and impression management: A case study among Canada’s large industrial emitters. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-18.
    • Tilt, C. A. (2001). Influences on corporate social disclosure: a look at lobby groups ten years on. Commerce Research Papers, No.04-1 – Flinders University.
    • Tilt, D. D, & Xydias-Lobo, M. (2016). Sustainability reporting by publicly listed companies in Sri Lanka. Journal of Cleaner Production, 129, 169-182.
    • Weber, O. (2016). The Sustainability Performance of Chinese Banks: Institutional Impact.
    • Weaver, G. R., Trevino, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999). Corporate ethics programs as control systems: Influences of executive commitment and environmental factors. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 41-57.
    • Wolf, J. (2014). The relationship between sustainable supply chain management, stakeholder pressure and corporate sustainability performance. Journal of business ethics, 119(3), 317-328.
    • World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987). Our common future (The Brundtland Report). Oxford University Press, Oxford.
    • Yilmaz, I. (2016). Social Performance vs. Financial Performance: CSR disclosures as an indicator of Social Performance. International Journal of Finance & Banking Studies, 2(2), 53-65.
Related Articles

  • Environmental accounting as perspective for hotels of Aqaba special economic zone authority (ASEZA)

    Mousa Mohammad Abdullah SalehORCID Researcher ID, Omar A. A. JawabrehORCID Researcher ID, Mohammad Nayef AlsarayrehORCID Researcher ID, Eman MalkawiORCID Researcher ID doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.16(4).2018.15
    Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 16, 2018         Issue #4         pp. 169-185 Views: 1043 Downloads: 202 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    This study aims at pointing out and explaining the major factors that can help in implementing environmental accounting in the hotels of Aqaba Special Economic Zone, the study population is going to be the classified and rated hotels of the Aqaba Special Economic Zone Authority, which is 33 hotels in total. This study will basically focus on two tools for gathering the data and information required for achieving the objectives of the study, the financial reports published by the investment department of Aqaba and the questionnaire. The study shows that the hotels in Aqaba Special Economic Zone Authority face difficulties and obstacles in the implementation of environmental accounting because of factors related to legislation, level of awareness about environmental accounting, factors related to the hotels and the qualification of human resource.

  • Corporate social environmental reporting and stock prices: an analysis of listed firms in Nigeria

    Omoike Osereme AmiolemenORCID Researcher ID, Uwalomwa UwuigbeORCID Researcher ID, Olubukola Ranti UwuigbeORCID Researcher ID, Ilogho Simon OsiregbemheORCID Researcher ID, Ajetunmobi OpeyemiORCID Researcher ID doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.15(3).2018.26
    Investment Management and Financial Innovations Volume 15, 2018         Issue #3         pp. 318-328 Views: 936 Downloads: 223 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    The study investigated Corporate Social Environmental Reporting and its association with stock prices (using market price per share as at the financial year end) among listed firms in Nigeria. The study used a cross-sectional research design comprising 50 publicly listed companies across various sectors for the period of five years (2011–2015). For the selected firms, the annual report was used to collect the data. This research utilizes the panel data regression in analyzing the influence of the independent variable (measured by corporate social and environmental expenditure) on the dependent variable measured using the market price per share) for the respective years. Also, in an attempt to examine the relatively market price per share across the sampled industries, the study made use of the one-way analysis of variance; while the Granger causality test was also conducted to ascertain whether bi-directional relationships exist between explanatory variable and the dependent variable (i.e. corporate social and environmental expenditure and market price per share). Findings from the study revealed that the association between corporate social and environmental expenditure and the market price of the firm (when considered in aggregate) is not significant. The result from the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) showed that the market price per share is significantly different across the industries.

  • Analysis of the approaches to evaluate environmental security of enterprises

    Maryna MashchenkoORCID doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ed.17(4).2018.02
    Economics of Development Volume 17, 2018         issue #4         pp. 13-19 Views: 908 Downloads: 99 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    Proved that to achieve socio-economic development of state it is necessary to ensure not only invarionmental security of state, but also of enterprise. There are a sufficiently large number of methods to evaluate the economic and ecological security of enterprise and, at the same time, there aren’t any practical methods to evaluate its environmental security. This confirms the necessity to analyse this issue in a more detailed way. The aim of the article is to analyse and identify the drawbacks of existing methods to evaluate the environmental security of enterprise and develop a system of indicators for environmental security of industrial enterprises. The following research methods were used in the article: method of analysis and synthesis to determine the drawbacks of existing methods to establish the level of environmental security, the graph analytic method to build a scheme of the process to develop the system of indicators for environmental security of industrial enterprise. It is determined that the process to develop the system of indicators for environmental security of industrial enterprise is a process of successive stages of determining the purpose and tasks to diagnose the state of environmental security of industrial enterprise, to select and process the necessary information and, directly, to develop a system of indicators of environmental security of industrial enterprise. The practical significance of this study is to determine the level of environmental security of industrial enterprise as an integral indicator. Its core is a set of social and economic, technical and technological, scientific and innovative, managerial and organizational indicators which have to account the criteria related to the external and internal environment of the enterprise activity. The proposed process to develop the system of indicators for environmental security of industrial enterprise allows determining the level of environmental security.

Download Preview
Close
Environmental Economics
Environmental Economics