A Bird’s Eye View: Uncovering the Impact of Stakeholder Pressure on Sustainable Development Goal Disclosure

Abstract

Grounded in stakeholder theory, we examine the impact of secondary stakeholder pressure on SDG disclosure. We verify the SDG disclosure of 1831 companies based in nine countries for the period of 2016–2019, considering as secondary stakeholders the government, society, unions, and the media. The results are mixed, with some indication that the pressure exerted by society and the media is important for companies in environmentally sensitive sectors to have better disclosure of the SDGs. Our results also reveal that financial performance and the adoption of the Global Compact by organizations are antecedents of greater engagement in SDG disclosure. Considering the stakeholder theory, our findings offer insights that point to the importance of dialogue between companies and stakeholders globally, not only those from the country in which the company is based. Stakeholders can work as a complement to the actions of companies in relation to social and environmental issues. Based on our results, we encourage managers to develop strategies to achieve the interests of their secondary stakeholders.

1. Introduction

In 2015, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Agenda 2030, which is a blueprint for sustainable development with a focus on people, planet, and prosperity. As part of the Agenda 2030, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were created, which comprise 17 goals and 169 targets to combat climate change, balance economic, social, and environmental development, and reduce poverty and gender inequality, among other aspects [1]. This endeavor has significant geographical participation, as it covers more than 130 countries and has the moral legitimacy of 193 UN member states committed to encouraging sustainable development among their companies [2].

Faced with this panorama, companies based in several countries have acted to reduce their impacts on the environment and report these actions in their official reports [3]. Therefore, SDG disclosure is an attitude of acting transparently toward all stakeholders by disclosing information on the actions that the company has taken to achieve the 17 SDGs or some of them. According to Silva (2021) [4], SDG disclosure is a way for a company to guarantee its legitimacy, communicate its environmental and social performance, respond to external pressures, and improve its corporate reputation.

Given the importance of this topic for the United Nations and other supranational and national institutions and governments, several studies have explored which factors can affect SDG disclosure. Previous studies [5,6,7,8] have shown that factors internal to organizations are crucial for better disclosure of the SDGs. For example, Rosati and Faria (2019) [8] showed that company size and company financial performance positively affect SDG disclosure. This is because larger companies have more financial and intellectual resources to invest in environmental and social issues, as well as because they suffer greater external pressure from stakeholders [9].

On the other hand, institutional factors, that is, those external to organizations, also shape their behavior in relation to the SDGs. Rosati and Faria’s [10] findings indicate that in countries with greater economic freedom and greater investment in education, companies have better SDG disclosure. Glass and Newig (2019) [11] reveal that national governance can shape the achievement of the SDGs. In countries with more democratic institutions, companies have a greater institutional incentive to participate in SDG disclosure. Pizzi et al. (2022) [12] found that a country’s culture can interfere with SDG disclosure, indicating that countries with greater long-term orientation tend to have companies that are more engaged with the SDGs.

Although previous studies have already revealed some factors (financial performance and board composition at the firm level) that affect the disclosure of the SDGs, there is still a gap that pertains to the relationships between stakeholder pressure, from a macroeconomic point of view, and the disclosure of the SDGs. Stakeholders can shape the behavior of organizations in relation to the SDGs, as each has specific interests in the company’s activities [13]. The media, for example, can mobilize public opinion for or against a given corporation [14]. Despite their importance in the performance of companies, the role of stakeholders (especially secondary ones) in SDG disclosure has not yet been explored in the literature [15].

Therefore, this study aimed to examine the impact of secondary stakeholder pressure on SDG disclosure. In this vein, the stakeholder theory forms the basis of our argument. To achieve the research objective, this research examined the SDG disclosure of 1831 companies based in the highest carbon-emitting economies. We focused on the following four types of secondary stakeholders: government, society, labor unions, and media.

The results are not entirely straightforward regarding the pressure exerted by government, society, and the media in terms of their importance in promoting better disclosure of the SDGs by companies in environmentally sensitive sectors. Our evidence presents significant theoretical and practical contributions. Notwithstanding, our findings offer insights that prove the importance of dialogue between companies and stakeholders. Stakeholders can work as a complement to the actions of companies in relation to social and environmental issues. On a practical level, managers must develop strategies to achieve the interests of their secondary stakeholders.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Stakeholder Theory

Stakeholder theory has been proposed as a holistic form of management that recognizes that organizations are part of an open system and that corporate success depends on the support of stakeholders [16,17,18]. We justify the use of this theory because our purpose is to examine the impact of secondary stakeholders on SDG disclosure, as well as SDG disclosure not only to investors but also to other interested parties [19].

The literature suggests that businesses are facing increasing pressure to become socially responsible [20]. Stakeholder pressure has been identified as one of the key factors contributing to the adoption of sustainability practices by companies [21,22]. These studies highlight the growing importance of social responsibility and sustainability in the business world, emphasizing the need for companies to address the concerns and expectations of their stakeholders in order to remain competitive and gain societal acceptance.

The fundamental questions of why firms exist and what their functions are, along with the roles of managers, have sparked an enduring debate that has been explored through various Theories of the Firm. These theories aim to explore the workings of companies by offering distinct perspectives and frameworks for analyzing organizational objectives. Among the diverse theories examined by Lozano et al. (2015) [23], it was concluded that stakeholder theory provides the most suitable approach to investigating sustainability-related themes within organizations. This theory emphasizes the management and balance of the company’s relationships with both social and nonsocial stakeholders, defined as “any group or individual who can affect or be affected by the achievement of the organizational objectives” [24]. Stakeholder theory brings attention to the importance of considering the interests and concerns of stakeholders in the management and operations of the company, thereby contributing to its long-term success and societal impact.

Freeman (1984) [24] emphasized the stakeholder theory, stating that corporations have responsibilities toward multiple stakeholders. Stakeholders can be classified into internal and external groups. Internal stakeholders include, among others, employees, managers, and business owners, while external stakeholders consist of suppliers, banks, governments, environmentalists, and other groups. Stockholders are unique as they can be considered both internal and external stakeholders [25].

Stakeholders can also be categorized as primary or secondary based on the extent to which they influence or are influenced by the company [26]. The relationship between companies and primary stakeholders plays a crucial role in shaping environmental policies, as these stakeholders maintain direct and reciprocal transactional relationships often mediated by secondary stakeholders [13].

According to Sarkis et al. (2010) [27], companies’ reactions to external practices can be proactive, driven by primary stakeholders’ push to adopt and implement environmental practices [28]. Conversely, reactions can be reactive, as secondary stakeholders may threaten or compel firms to adhere to green practices [27]. These statements align with the observation made by Clarkson (1995) [14] that corporate social performance can be best analyzed and evaluated based on the relationship between a corporation and its stakeholders.

In sum, companies’ responsibilities have moved beyond profit generation and job creation. The rise of sustainability has highlighted the need for firms to consider a broader range of stakeholders [25,29]. Without pressure from external groups, environmental interests may be overlooked, as indicated by Fadeeva (2005) [30] and exemplified by D’Souza and Taghian’s (2018) [15] study on government regulations. Stakeholder pressure, reputational risks, and legal considerations serve as driving forces for the implementation of standards and codes of conduct, according to Seuring and Gold (2013) [31]. Ultimately, stakeholder theorists argue that organizations must acknowledge and cultivate relationships with stakeholders to attain legitimacy within the external environment, as stated by Shubham et al. (2018) [13] and supported by Freeman et al.’s (2010) [25] definition of stakeholder engagement. These insights underscore the significance of stakeholder management in achieving sustainable and responsible business practices.

There is not a consensual classification of stakeholders as secondary or primary. For example, whilst Clarkson (1995) [14] and Shubham et al. (2018) [13] consider the government as a primary stakeholder, Lozano et al. (2015) [23] and D’Souza et al. (2022) [15] present it as a secondary one. In this study, we consider the government and the media as secondary stakeholders, as Lozano et al. (2015) [23] do. To these two, we add society and labor unions. Whilst we recognize that labor unions “occupy a distinctive position” in the stakeholder landscape [32], we believe they should be distinguished from the employees themselves, who are primary stakeholders.

2.2. Hypothesis Development

First, we hypothesize about the positive effect between government and companies’ disclosure of the SDG. Preliminary studies have pointed out that government regulations are seen as an efficient way of repressing environmental degradation [15,26,33,34]. Coercive pressure is used by the government to ensure that companies reshape the supply chain on a large scale, mitigating environmental and social risks [26]. This force may be stronger if seen as a norm, and this is where government acts: forming legislation, regulations, and public policies [35]. The creation of purchasing policies and ensuring that “only certified firms are allowed to bid for governmental contracts” [26] are examples of such actions. The results of the study by Haji et al. (2023) [36] showed that regulatory quality improves the environmental performance of companies and prevents them from committing greenwashing. Based on these arguments, we hypothesize that:

H1. 

In countries with better regulatory quality, companies have more complete disclosure of the SDG.

Second, the literature suggests a positive effect when society is involved with SDG disclosure [37,38,39]. According to Sénit (2020) [39], civil society participation has become prominent since the 1992 Earth Summit; because of this, studies are recognizing its influence in informal and exclusive participatory spaces, at international and national levels [37,39]. In a practical way, on the one hand, civil society can voice their opinion inside negotiating hubs through oral or written interventions, in formal or informal settings [40]. On the other hand, mass protests and campaigning may be used by civil society actors to pressure and influence intergovernmental policymaking in favor of the environment [39]. According to Almeida and García-Sánchez (2017) [41], in a democratic system, there is more openness in relations between the government and citizens, which prompts company managers to pay attention to collective problems, such as environmental issues. Therefore, we hypothesize that:

H2. 

In countries with greater societal participation, companies have more complete disclosure of the SDG.

Third, unions may represent a collective voice of employees, and in countries with a less stringent government, unions exert greater pressure on organizations to disclose the SDGs [10,42]. Prior research highlights the importance of a proactive role of unions in the bargaining process, granting rights to employees, and responding to social demands [10,42,43]. When a company assumes responsibility toward the SDGs, unions must monitor and follow up on its reports in order to verify its degree of success or failure in implementing sustainable practices. Consequently, unions ensure that organizations are accountable for their practices [10]. Indeed, they have been significant advocates of the responsibility of companies to address environmental and social issues. Thus, we argue that:

H3. 

In countries with a higher density of unions, companies have more complete disclosure of the SDG.

Finally, the fourth hypothesis argues that media play a fundamental role in disclosure of the SDG [44,45]. When the media convince and mobilize a discussion, a representative mass of people can demand actions from companies [37,39]. In fact, the articulation of media and stakeholders previously described may result in a strategic alliance to raise awareness and influence the public [14]. But in order for this to happen, it is crucial that countries provide freedom of the press [44,45,46]. The literature suggests that “economy suffers when press freedom deteriorates” [37,45]. El Ghoul et al. (2019) [47] noted that the speed of distribution of information and public awareness by the media increases the interest of companies in engaging in social and environmental issues in order to maintain their reputation. We argue that freedom of the press guarantees that reliable information about the SDGs and reality reaches the government and society. Therefore, our hypothesis is that:

H4. 

In countries with greater freedom of the press, companies have more complete disclosure of the SDG.

3. Methods

3.1. Sample Description

Our initial sample consisted of all companies with information available in the Thomson Reuters Eikon database for the period 2016 to 2019. As the purpose of this research was to analyze companies in environmentally sensitive sectors, we excluded companies from other sectors (consumer discretionary, consumer staples, financial services, health care, real estate, and technology) and companies that did not have available information about SDG disclosure.

The Agenda 2030 was signed in 2015 by 193 UN member states that committed to encouraging sustainable development [48]. Therefore, 2016 was the year following the signing of the Global Compact, and thus companies began to disclose information regarding the SDGs in this year. Furthermore, 2019 was a year before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, and according to Botzen et al. (2021) [49], the COVID-19 crisis changed the relationship of companies with climate change. Therefore, these facts justify the period of analysis of our study.

After excluding companies that did not have information available on SDG disclosure, the final sample consisted of 1831 companies from four industry sectors: the basic materials, energy, industrial, and utility sectors. This study examined these four sectors because they are considered environmentally sensitive sectors; that is, they generate negative environmental impacts because they deal directly with natural resources. According to García-Meca and Martínez-Ferrero (2021) [50], firms operating in these sectors receive more pressure from their stakeholders to minimize the use of raw materials and reduce waste and carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Table 1 shows how companies were segmented by sectors and countries.

As can be seen, the industrial sector had the highest representation in the sample with 834 companies, followed by the basic materials sector with 526 companies. Together, these sectors represent 74% of the total number of companies analyzed in this study. On the other hand, the utility sector had the lowest participation in the sample, with 176 companies, corresponding to 9.61% of the total sample.

Our research examined companies based in 9 economies: Brazil, China, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Russia, and United States. The selection of these countries was based on the study by Akadiri and Adebayo (2022) [51], which identified the countries that emitted the most carbon in the period from 1991 to 2019. According to Akadiri and Adebayo (2022) [51], the governments of these countries need to understand which factors motivate their companies to engage with the SDGs to create public policies to reduce carbon emissions.

Table 1 shows that the United States was the country with the highest representation with 776 companies, followed by China with 433 companies and India with 310 companies. In contrast, Indonesia had only 25 companies in the sample, followed by Russia with 30 companies and Japan with 47 companies. Our sample includes companies headquartered in the American, European, and Asian continents.

3.2. Variables

Our dependent variable was the disclosure of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, labeled the SDGs. Each company disclosed its strategies for the 17 SDGs. Therefore, this variable is the sum of the SDGs that were disclosed by the company in the respective year. In this sense, if a company disclosed strategies and actions for the 17 SDGs, it obtained a maximum score of 17 points. Table 2 reports the variables used in this study and their respective sources.

The independent variables represent the secondary stakeholders, as defined above. Government is represented by regulatory quality, which measures the government’s ability to formulate and implement sound policies and regulations that enable and promote private sector development. Society is represented by the political participation and voice of the various segments of society, which includes minorities. The third secondary stakeholder is unions, as measured by the percentage of employees who are members of unions. Finally, the last group of stakeholders is the media, as measured by the press freedom index.

Independent variables were collected from international databases, which provide secondary data by country and by year. The following databases were used: The Worldwide Governance Indicators (World Bank), Freedom House, International Labour Organization (United Nations Organization), and Reporters Without Borders. These databases present appropriate variables to represent each secondary stakeholder analyzed, and the data are reliable as they are prepared by scientists from universities and supranational organizations and have been widely used in previous studies [52]. These variables and their scales are constructed in accordance with the values and standards of the Western world, presenting a positive impact on SDG disclosure in these countries.

We controlled for several company attributes that may affect SDG disclosure: market capitalization, return on assets, company size, financial leverage, and adoption of the Global Compact. According to Șerban et al. (2022) [53], market capitalization represents the value of a company, and companies with greater value tend to include sustainability in their routines, because they have greater pressure from stakeholders. Previous studies [1,54] indicate that return on assets can affect the climate disclosure.

Additionally, there is a consensus in the literature that larger companies are subject to scrutiny by different groups in society and therefore need to legitimize their actions by being more transparent [1]. Regarding financial leverage, previous studies [3,54] have found conflicting results, indicating that debt can have both a positive and negative effect on SDG disclosure.

According to Orzes et al. (2020) [48], companies that adhered to the United Nations Global Compact tend to have a better environmental performance because it is one of the most important sustainable development initiatives. It aims to align the strategies and operations of companies with principles that involve human rights, work, the environment, and combating corruption. Finally, we also controlled for the human development index, as we were working with an international sample.

3.3. Econometric Approach

Employing panel data analysis with fixed effects, we analyzed the impact of secondary stakeholder pressure on SDG disclosure. Panel data with fixed effects are suitable for this because this technique allows you to analyze how variables change over time [55]. The fixed-effects model was used to determine the relationship between independent and dependent variables at the firm or country level. Additionally, panel data are suitable for this because they use a combination of time series and cross-sectional data. In our case, we had an unbalanced data panel, as not all companies had information for all the years of analysis. To test our hypotheses, we ran the following model:

$$\begin{gathered} {SDG}_{it}={\beta }_{it}+{\beta }_1{GOVERN}_{it}+{SOCIE}_{it}+{UNIONS}_{it}+{MEDIA}_{it}+{MKTCAP}_{it}+{ROA}_{it} \\ +{FIRMSIZE}_{it}+{LEVERAGE}_{it}+{GLOBALCOM}_{it}+{HDI}_{it}+{\theta }_i+{\epsilon }_{it} \end{gathered}$$

where the subscript “i” refers to the firm, “t” represents the time, “β” represents the estimated parameter, “θ” refers to the unobservable time invariant, and “ε” is the error. In addition to the main tests, we operationalized additional tests, such as the Breusch–Pagan test, VIF (Value Inflation Factor), and GMM (Generalized Method of Moments) regression, in order to verify if the data presented heteroscedasticity, multicollinearity, and endogenous regressors.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Descriptive Analysis

Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics of the variables used in the econometric models. As can be seen, not all variables had the same number of observations. This is justified because some variables had no information available, such as companies that did not have financial information or countries without information on the percentage of employees that are union members. The dependent variable had a mean of 3.52, a minimum of 0, and a maximum of 17. This means that the sample has companies that disclosed all information regarding the 17 SDGs and companies that did not disclose any information on the SDGs.

The regulatory efficiency of governments averaged 0.80, while society participation averaged 10.59 with a maximum of 16. Unions had an average of 15.74, and in the country with the highest percentage of unionized employees, 44.6% of employees were members of unions. The mean value of the press freedom index was 59.56. Regarding the control variables, the mean values of market capitalization, ROA, firm size, and financial leverage were 9.43%, 0.05%, 9.61%, and 0.28% respectively. Additionally, 9% of the companies in the sample signed the UN Global Compact. Most countries in the sample have a high HDI.

Table 4 shows the paired correlation for the variables of the econometric models. Given the weak levels of correlation between the dependent variable and the independent variables, multicollinearity was not a problem in our analyses. According to Table 4, none of the coefficients were higher than 0.80. To confirm this, we operationalized the VIF (Value Inflation Factor) test for all models.

4.2. Multivariate Data Analysis

Table 5 provides the results of panel data regression with fixed effects. We operationalized individual models for each independent variable and then a complete model with all variables. This technique can help confirm the signals obtained by the variables.

Our findings allowed us to identify that society participation is a motivating factor for companies to disclose more information about the SDGs. Thus, in countries where society has a greater voice, which includes minority groups, companies are more likely to be under more pressure to perform better in terms of disclosing SDGs.

Furthermore, our evidence shows that in economies where employees are unionized, companies have greater disclosure of the SDGs. In fact, companies with higher levels of unionization can invest in more programs aimed at external public, such as social and environmental issues. Our results also allowed us to identify that media stakeholders positively influence the disclosure of the SDGs by companies. Therefore, in countries where the media has greater freedom to present news free of the interests of private groups, companies disclose the SDGs to a higher extent.

Regarding the control variables, the size of the company had a positive effect on the disclosure of the SDGs, indicating that larger companies have greater social responsibility. This confirms the assumptions of the stakeholder theory, which states that larger companies have more stakeholders and, consequently, greater pressure to have more responsible attitudes. Financial leverage had a negative effect on SDG disclosure. Companies with more debt may see SDG disclosure as an additional cost. The signing of the Global Compact had a positive effect on SDG disclosure. In fact, companies that signed the Global Compact are more likely to include sustainability issues in their corporate strategies. In addition, in countries with a higher HDI, companies have less disclosure of the SDGs.

4.3. Robustness Analysis: Replacing the Dependent Variable and Excluding US Companies

We conducted additional tests to examine whether the results are stable. First, we modified the technique employed. Instead of using panel data analysis, as in the previous models, we employed logistic regression. We replaced the dependent variable with a dummy variable: companies that performed above 9 points were assigned a value of 1, and otherwise, 0. In other words, companies that disclosed more than 50% of the 17 SDGs were assigned the value 1. Table 6 presents the results when we replace the dependent variable.

The regulatory quality variable had a positive effect on SDG disclosure. This result differs from the previous model, which may indicate that the role of regulatory quality in the disclosure of the SDGs is still unclear. The signs of the coefficients concerning the other independent variables remained the same. However, in the case of the variable UNIONS, the relationship was not statistically significant. Hence, the results reveal that in countries with greater regulatory quality, greater participation of society, and greater media freedom, companies are more likely to disclose more information on SDGs.

Market value had a positive effect on ODS, as well as ROA in some models. Company size positively influenced the disclosure of the SDGs in all models, and financial leverage had a positive effect in models 8, 9, and 10. Finally, the findings confirm that companies that signed the Global Compact carry out more actions for the SDGs.

Table 7 presents the results of the additional test to test the hypotheses. In these new econometric models, we excluded US companies, as they represented a large part of the sample, and this could bias the findings.

As can be seen above, only in the case of the variable GOVERN was the result similar. In the case of the other variables, whose relationships with disclosure were statistically significant, the signs were the opposite of those obtained in the main analysis. When excluding US companies, GOVERN still presented a negative relationship with disclosure, but UNIONS and MEDIA presented a negative relationship with the dependent variable. This could be explained by China and India, which are among the countries with lower levels of press freedom and higher levels of unionization, and represent the majority of companies in the sample without US companies.

4.4. Discussion

Our results suggest that only when considering US companies do hypotheses 2, 3, and 4 seem to be supported. The overall findings suggest that society participation and freedom of the press are antecedents of greater disclosure of the SDGs by companies in environmentally sensitive sectors. However, when excluding US firms, the freedom of the press and the level of unionization seem to have a negative impact on SDG disclosure. This may well be related to the weight of China and India in the sample, given that they have very lower levels of press freedom and higher levels of unionization, and represent the majority of the companies in the sample without US companies.

Regarding hypothesis 1, our results are not coherent with those of Haji et al. (2023) [36] and Pinheiro et al. (2022) [33], who claim that regulatory quality can encourage companies to have greater social and environmental responsibility. According to Hartmann and Uhlenbruck (2015) [56], companies headquartered in countries with better national governance tend to have better environmental performance because they suffer greater institutional pressure to achieve the interests not only of shareholders but of all other stakeholders. This unexpected finding regarding the role of the government may be related to the type of countries included in the sample. It may be the case that in these countries, CSR may compensate for institutional weaknesses pertaining to the limitations of the government, requiring firms to step up to the plate and implement formal regulation themselves [32,57,58].

Regarding hypothesis 2, our findings are not consistent with those of previous studies (Almeida and García-Sánchez, 2017 [41], Pinheiro et al. 2022 [59]), which suggest that in more democratic societies, companies do more for the SDGs. According to Almeida and García-Sánchez (2017) [41], in systems where society has a voice, it is more likely that the principles of environmental preservation are ensured. In practice, this means that in governments that listen to their citizens, including minority groups, companies have greater concern for the SDGs, likely due to the participation of citizens and organizations that engage with ecological issues. Our study’s findings do not entirely validate this hypothesis. Only when US companies are considered is this hypothesis supported. When not considering such companies, there is no significant relationship between society participation and SDG reporting. This is likely to be related to the composition of the sample, with a greater weight given to companies based in countries such as China and India, as well as the inclusion of companies based in Russia and Indonesia. Hence, without the US, only Germany and Japan and, to a lesser extent, Brazil and South Korea, have good levels of society participation. Companies based in the first two countries represent a little over 70% of the companies included in the sample without US companies.

In more inclusive societies, Black individuals, women, the LGBT community, and other minorities tend to have greater civic engagement [10], which encourages society to pressure organizations for more ethical behavior. From this perspective, the study by Izugbara et al. (2022) [60] indicated that the lack of inclusion of women and LGBT in society is a barrier to achieving the SDGs in several African countries. Public policymakers in these countries frown on SDG policies that attempt to include minority groups in society.

Similarly, hypothesis 4 is only validated when considering the global sample. In this case, it does indeed seem that in countries where journalists can produce news without political interference and with greater physical and mental security, companies have greater disclosure of the SDGs. This reinforces the finding of El Ghoul et al. (2019) [47], who claim that the media encourage companies to have a better environmental performance and avoid news that could negatively affect their reputation. However, if one does not consider firms from the US, the relationship between press freedom and SDG disclosure is negative.

The media are indeed an important stakeholder that can shape a company’s relationship with environmental issues. In cases of environmental disasters and spills, the media can affect society’s perception of a brand, and it can take years for a company to rebuild its reputation [61]. In this sense, the media shape public opinion and can encourage people to put pressure on organizations to achieve the SDGs.

But one probably cannot establish a straightforward relationship between the two variables we examined without considering that nowadays there are important pressures that cannot be reduced to national factors. The companies included in our sample are most likely multinational companies that have operations worldwide and suffer pressure pertaining to their contribution to sustainable development from their suppliers as well as from the final consumers from a great number of countries. This is most likely the case for Chinese and Indian companies.

5. Conclusions

Framed under the stakeholder approach, this research aimed to examine the impact of pressure from secondary stakeholders on SDG disclosure. To achieve this purpose, we analyzed 1831 companies based in the most carbon-emitting economies. We investigated the influence of four secondary stakeholders (government, society, unions, and media) that may influence companies’ disclosure of the SDGs.

Our evidence indicates that the government, through its regulatory quality, has a negative influence on SDG disclosure. Furthermore, in societies where people have greater participation, companies are more engaged with the SDGs. Our study also reveals that in economies where the media are freer from political and economic interference, companies have greater disclosure of the SDGs. Therefore, from a bird’s eye view, this study concludes that stakeholder influence is key to business decisions and actions toward achieving the SDGs.

In addition to these main findings, which respond to our research purpose, our study shows that financial performance is an antecedent of SDG disclosure. In other words, larger companies, which have a greater number of stakeholders, have greater engagement with the SDGs. The adoption of the UN Global Compact also has a positive effect on SDG disclosure, indicating that companies that adhere to the Compact’s principles tend to have greater disclosure of social and environmental information. Based on these findings, this study has important academic and practical implications.

In terms of theoretical contributions, this article advances stakeholder theory by examining the impacts of secondary stakeholder pressures on SDG disclosure. The findings do show that the pressure exerted by society, governments, unions, and the media is crucial for companies in environmentally sensitive sectors. However, these relationships do not seem to be as straightforward as is usually suggested. Having a sample that includes a great number of US companies, as is usually the case, seems to skew the results. However, it appears that even in the absence of pressure from secondary stakeholders in their home country, companies based in countries with lower regulatory quality, diminished societal participation, weaker union influence, and restricted freedom of the press engage with counterparts in countries exhibiting contrasting characteristics, and thus are pressured to disclose the SDGs.

Regarding practical contributions, this article elucidates for managers that it is necessary for organizations to engage deeply and effectively with the SDGs, independently of the characteristics of the country in which they are based. For this, it is necessary to be attentive and in tune with external changes, which imply changes in the sustainability strategies of organizations. Managers must be aware that government, society, and the media can play a crucial role in pressuring their companies to perform better on SDGs, as can the companies with which they collaborate with.

Different institutional contexts demand different responses from companies to achieve the interests of secondary stakeholders. In this vein, in countries with greater societal participation and greater press freedom, companies must invest more resources in developing policies and strategies to achieve the SDGs. As SDG disclosure is relevant not only for investors but also for other stakeholders, companies must avoid making this type of disclosure merely symbolic. Therefore, companies must develop a better understanding of the integration of the SDGs in their sustainability reports to generate value for customers, investors, NGOs, suppliers, society, among others.

In terms of contributions to policymakers, our research casts doubt on the regulatory power of national states, media, unions, and the larger society in their ability to encourage companies to have a higher performance in SDGs. This suggests that national institutions should be aware of what is happening in similar institutions in countries with which their companies interact with. As a social contribution, our study pointed out the importance of society participation in SDG disclosure. We reiterate that the participation and voice of civil society is fundamental in encouraging organizations to develop strategies to achieve the SDGs, but this should not be limited to the national level.

This work has some limitations that can be overcome in future research. We only analyzed four stakeholder groups, as well as a specific period (2016–2019). In addition, our dependent variable reflects the disclosure of the SDGs and not the concrete actions of companies to achieve sustainable development. The results found cannot be generalized to all sectors, since only basic materials, energy, industrial, and utility companies were analyzed. Most importantly, the countries considered were very specific and only a small number were included, although it was this characteristic of the sample that allowed us to extract some relevant insights.

Therefore, future studies should examine other stakeholder groups, such as non-government organizations and local communities. The article invites further research to analyze the relationship between stakeholder pressure and SGDs in times of crisis, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic. Likewise, the inclusion of other sectors and other countries could contribute to more generalizable results.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.B.P.; Methodology, A.B.P., G.G.M. and G.d.C.L.; Validation, A.B.P. and M.C.B.; Formal analysis, A.B.P., G.G.M. and G.d.C.L.; Data curation, G.G.M. and G.d.C.L.; Writing—original draft, A.B.P., G.G.M. and G.d.C.L.; Writing—review & editing, M.C.B.; Supervision, M.C.B.; Project administration, A.B.P. and M.C.B.; Funding acquisition, M.C.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Tables

Table 1

Number of sample companies in each sector and country.

Country/Sector	Basic Materials	Energy	Industrial	Utilities	Total	%
Brazil	12	7	17	18	54	2.94%
China	153	53	194	33	433	23.64%
Germany	23	8	61	7	99	5.40%
India	148	17	121	24	310	16.93%
Indonesia	10	8	5	2	25	1.36%
Japan	14	1	31	1	47	2.56%
S. Korea	15	5	34	3	57	3.11%
Russia	13	10	1	6	30	1.63%
United States	138	186	370	82	776	42.38%
Total	526	295	834	176	1831	100%

Table 2

Variable definitions, measurements, and data sources.

Variables	Description and Measurements	Source
SDGs	Sustainable Development Goals: this variable is the sum of the 17 SDGs, ranging from 0 (if the company has not disclosed any SDGs) to 17 (if the company has disclosed all SDGs).	Thomson Reuters Eikon
GOVERN	Regulatory Quality: This variable reflects perceptions of the ability of the government to formulate and implement sound policies and regulations that permit and promote private sector development. Regulatory quality ranges from approximately −2.5 (weak) to 2.5 (strong).	The Worldwide Governance Indicators, World Bank
SOCIE	Society participation: this variable indicates if the various segments of the society (including ethnic, racial, religious, gender, and LGBT+ groups) have full political rights, voice, and electoral opportunities.	Freedom House
UNIONS	Trade union density rate (%): this variable conveys the number of union members who are employees as a percentage of the total number of employees.	International Labour Organization
MEDIA	Press freedom index: This variable reflects the ability of journalists to select, produce, and disseminate news in the public interest independent of political, economic, legal, and social interference and in the absence of threats to their physical and mental safety. It ranges from 0 (less press freedom) to 100 (greater press freedom).	Reporters Without Borders
MKTCAP	Market capitalization refers to the total dollar market value of a company’s outstanding shares.	Thomson Reuters Eikon
ROA	Return on assets: net income/total assets.	Thomson Reuters Eikon
TAMEMP	Company size: natural log of total assets.	Thomson Reuters Eikon
LEVER	Financial leverage: total liabilities/total assets.	Thomson Reuters Eikon
GLOBALCOM	Adoption of the UN Global Compact: 1 = if the company adopts the Global Compact; 0 = otherwise.	Thomson Reuters Eikon
HDI	Human development index: this is a composite index ranging from 0 to 1 based on 3 dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, access to knowledge, and a decent standard of living.	United Nations Development Programme

Table 3

Summary of descriptive statistics.

Variables	Obs.	Mean	Std. Dev.	Min.	Max.
SDG	4866	3.52	5.54	0.00	17.0
GOVERN	4866	0.80	0.86	−0.55	1.81
SOCIE	4866	10.59	5.93	0.00	16.0
UNIONS	3838	15.74	10.39	9.9	44.6
MEDIA	4866	59.56	23.33	19.04	85.61
MKTCAP	4823	9.43	0.71	6.32	11.66
ROA	3019	0.05	0.08	−1.14	0.64
FIRMSIZE	4324	9.61	0.70	6.80	11.60
LEVERAGE	3055	0.28	0.18	0.00	2.02
GLOBALCOM	4866	0.09	0.29	0.00	1.00
HDI	4866	0.84	0.10	0.63	0.94

Table 4

Pairwise correlation matrix.

Variables	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)	(10)
(1) SDG	1.00
(2) GOVERN	−0.13 ***	1.00
(3) SOCIE	0.04 ***	0.74 ***	1.00
(4) UNIONS	−0.00	−0.74 ***	−0.92 ***	1.00
(5) MEDIA	0.00	0.87 ***	0.95 ***	−0.94 ***	1.00
(6) MKTCAP	0.30 ***	−0.16 ***	−0.21 ***	0.15 ***	−0.20 ***	1.00
(7) ROA	0.02	−0.08 ***	−0.02	-0.01	−0.04 **	0.22 ***	1.00
(8) FIRMSIZE	0.33 ***	−0.10 ***	−0.19 ***	0.11 ***	−0.15 ***	0.78 ***	−0.06 ***	1.00
(9) LEVERAGE	0.02	0.08 ***	0.01	−0.14 ***	0.06 ***	0.06 ***	−0.23 ***	0.25 ***	1.00
(10) GLOBALCOM	0.27 ***	0.05 ***	0.14 ***	−0.01	0.13 ***	0.19 ***	−0.00	0.22 ***	0.00	1.00
(11) HDI	−0.10 ***	0.91 ***	0.48 ***	−0.58 ***	0.70 ***	−0.08 ***	−0.08 ***	0.02	0.12 ***	0.06 ***

Note: ***: <0.01; **: <0.05.

Table 5

Panel data regression results.

Variables	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5
GOVERN	−0.38				−6.51 ***
SOCIE		0.17 ***			0.71 ***
UNIONS			0.06 **		0.22 ***
MEDIA				0.04 ***	0.06 ***
MKTCAP	−0.36	−0.27	−1.00 ***	−0.27	0.01
ROA	−1.63	−1.70	−0.60	−1.74	−1.38
FIRMSIZE	3.08 ***	3.20 ***	3.56 ***	3.20 ***	2.57 ***
LEVERAGE	−2.03 ***	−1.94 ***	−2.03 ***	−2.03 ***	−1.59 **
GLOBALCOM	3.78 ***	3.49 ***	3.72 ***	3.54 ***	2.41 ***
HDI	−7.19 ***	−12.99 ***	−9.34 ***	−15.91 ***	27.26 ***
Obs.	2134	2134	1750	2134	1750
R2	0.1790	0.1934	0.2019	0.1910	0.2614
Breusch–Pagan test	79.45	72.13	45.08	68.70	78.52
VIF	3.31	1.76	1.93	1.95	4.68
F (Prob > F)	66.12 ***	72.72 ***	62.85 ***	71.6 2 ***	61.43 ***
Endogenous regressors	No	No	No	No	No

Note: *** p < 0.01. ** p < 0.05.

Table 6

Robustness test results: replacing the dependent variable.

Variables	Model 6	Model 7	Model 8	Model 9	Model 10
GOVERN	0.59 ***				0.08 ***
SOCIE		1.02 ***			1.28 ***
UNIONS			0.98		1.01
MEDIA				1.00 ***	1.00 *
MKTCAP	0.74 *	0.70 **	0.44 ***	0.70 ***	0.70 **
ROA	2.29	3.22 *	7.70 **	3.14 *	3.05
FIRMSIZE	3.44 ***	3.81 ***	5.86 ***	3.79 ***	3.89 ***
LEVERAGE	0.36 ***	0.39 ***	0.26 ***	0.38 **	0.28 ***
GLOBALCOM	2.36 ***	2.19 ***	2.45 ***	2.23 ***	1.81 ***
HDI	0.67	0.00 ***	0.00 ***	0.00 ***	13.83 ***
Obs.	2134	2134	1750	2134	1750
Pseudo R2	0.1066	0.1045	0.1201	0.1034	0.1619
LR chi2	280.96 ***	275.58 ***	254.94 ***	272.57 ***	343.64 ***
Log likelihood	−1177.83	−1180.52	−933.80	−1182.02	−889.45

Note: *** p < 0.01. ** p < 0.05. * p < 0.10.

Table 7

Robustness test results: excluding US companies from the sample.

Variables	Model 11	Model 12	Model 13	Model 14	Model 15
GOVERN	2.46 ***				−3.04 ***
SOCIE		0.31 ***			0.25
UNIONS			−0.14		−0.25 *
MEDIA				0.09 ***	−0.14 **
MKTCAP	0.94 *	1.67 **	0.77 ***	1.74 ***	0.97
ROA	0.39	−0.27	2.04	−0.49	0.30
FIRMSIZE	2.93 ***	2.66 ***	3.13 ***	2.65 ***	2.51 ***
LEVERAGE	0.67	0.79	0.61 ***	0.51	−0.58
GLOBALCOM	1.31 ***	0.56 ***	0.45	0.60	0.70
HDI	−16.02 ***	−3.33 **	−2.98	−9.18 ***	25.62 ***
Obs.	1022	1022	638	1022	638
R2	0.1525	0.2073	0.1994	0.2034	0.2393
F (Prob>F)	26.00 ***	37.77 ***	22.31 ***	36.88 ***	19.63 ***
Endogenous regressors	No	No	No	No	No

Note: *** p < 0.01. ** p < 0.05. * p < 0.10.

References

1. Toukabri, M.; Mohamed Youssef, M.A. Climate change disclosure and sustainable development goals (SDGs) of the 2030 agenda: The moderating role of corporate governance. J. Inf. Commun. Ethics Soc.; 2023; 21, pp. 30-62. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JICES-02-2022-0016]

2. Nonet, G.A.H.; Gössling, T.; Van Tulder, R.; Bryson, J.M. Multi-stakeholder Engagement for the Sustainable Development Goals: Introduction to the Special Issue. J. Bus. Ethics; 2022; 180, pp. 945-957. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05192-0] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36065323]

3. Arena, M.; Azzone, G.; Ratti, S.; Urbano, V.M.; Vecchio, G. Sustainable development goals and corporate reporting: An empirical investigation of the oil and gas industry. Sustain. Dev.; 2023; 31, pp. 12-25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.2369]

4. Silva, S. Corporate contributions to the Sustainable Development Goals: An empirical analysis informed by legitimacy theory. J. Clean. Prod.; 2021; 292, 125962. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125962]

5. Curtó-Pagès, F.; Ortega-Rivera, E.; Castellón-Durán, M.; Jané-Llopis, E. Coming in from the cold: A longitudinal analysis of SDG reporting practices by Spanish listed companies since the approval of the 2030 agenda. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 1178. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13031178]

6. Martínez-Ferrero, J.; García-Meca, E. Internal corporate governance strength as a mechanism for achieving sustainable development goals. Sustain. Dev.; 2020; 28, pp. 1189-1198. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.2068]

7. Pizzi, S.; Rosati, F.; Venturelli, A. The determinants of business contribution to the 2030 Agenda: Introducing the SDG Reporting Score. Bus. Strat. Environ.; 2021; 30, pp. 404-421. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.2628]

8. Rosati, F.; Faria, L.G.D. Addressing the SDGs in sustainability reports: The relationship with institutional factors. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 215, pp. 1312-1326. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.107]

9. ElAlfy, A.; Darwish, K.M.; Weber, O. Corporations and sustainable development goals communication on social media: Corporate social responsibility or just another buzzword?. Sustain. Dev.; 2020; 28, pp. 1418-1430. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.2095]

10. Rosati, F.; Faria, L.G.D. Business contribution to the Sustainable Development Agenda: Organizational factors related to early adoption of SDG reporting. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag.; 2019; 26, pp. 588-597. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.1705]

11. Glass, L.M.; Newig, J. Governance for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals: How important are participation, policy coherence, reflexivity, adaptation and democratic institutions?. Earth Syst. Gov.; 2019; 2, 100031. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2019.100031]

12. Pizzi, S.; Del Baldo, M.; Caputo, F.; Venturelli, A. Voluntary disclosure of Sustainable Development Goals in mandatory non-financial reports: The moderating role of cultural dimension. J. Int. Financ. Manag. Account.; 2022; 33, pp. 83-106. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jifm.12139]

13. Shubham,; Charan, P.; Murty, L.S. Organizational adoption of sustainable manufacturing practices in India: Integrating institutional theory and corporate environmental responsibility. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol.; 2018; 25, pp. 23-34. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2016.1258373]

14. Clarkson, M.B.E. A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. Acad. Manag. Rev.; 1995; 20, 92. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/258888]

15. D’Souza, C.; Ahmed, T.; Khashru, M.A.; Ahmed, R.; Ratten, V.; Jayaratne, M. The complexity of stakeholder pressures and their influence on social and environmental responsibilities. J. Clean. Prod.; 2022; 358, 132038. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132038]

16. Goyal, L. Stakeholder theory: Revisiting the origins. J. Public Aff.; 2022; 22, e2559. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pa.2559]

17. Marcon Nora, G.A.; Alberton, A.; Ayala, D.H.F. Stakeholder theory and actor-network theory: The stakeholder engagement in energy transitions. Bus. Strategy Environ.; 2023; 32, pp. 673-685. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.3168]

18. Johnson-Cramer, M.E.; Phillips, R.A.; Fadlallah, H.; Berman, S.L.; Elms, H. What We Talk About When We Talk About Stakeholders. Bus. Soc.; 2022; 61, pp. 1083-1135. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00076503211053005]

19. De Iorio, S.; Zampone, G.; Piccolo, A. Determinant Factors of SDG Disclosure in the University Context. Adm. Sci.; 2022; 12, 21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/admsci12010021]

20. Tura, N.; Hanski, J.; Ahola, T.; Ståhle, M.; Piiparinen, S.; Valkokari, P. Unlocking circular business: A framework of barriers and drivers. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 212, pp. 90-98. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.202]

21. Barnett, M.L.; Henriques, I.; Husted, B.W. Governing the void between stakeholder management and sustainability. Adv. Strateg. Manag.; 2018; 38, pp. 121-143.

22. Jakhar, S.K.; Bhattacharya, A.; Rathore, H.; Mangla, S.K. Stakeholder pressure for sustainability: Can ‘innovative capabilities’ explain the idiosyncratic response in the manufacturing firms?. Bus. Strategy Environ.; 2020; 29, pp. 2635-2653. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.2526]

23. Lozano, R.; Carpenter, A.; Huisingh, D. A review of ‘theories of the firm’ and their contributions to Corporate Sustainability. J. Clean. Prod.; 2015; 106, pp. 430-442. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.007]

24. Freeman, R.E. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach; Pitman Series in Business and Public Policy; Pitman: Boston, MA, USA, 1984; 276p.

25. Freeman, R.E.; Wicks, A.C.; Parmar, B. Stakeholder Theory and “The Corporate Objective Revisited”. Organ. Sci.; 2004; 15, pp. 364-369. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0066]

26. Castka, P.; Prajogo, D. The effect of pressure from secondary stakeholders on the internalization of ISO 14001. J. Clean. Prod.; 2013; 47, pp. 245-252. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.034]

27. Sarkis, J.; Gonzalez-Torre, P.; Adenso-Diaz, B. Stakeholder pressure and the adoption of environmental practices: The mediating effect of training. J. Oper. Manag.; 2010; 28, pp. 163-176. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2009.10.001]

28. Obel, B.; Gurkov, I. Strategic orientation of the firm towards its stakeholders and inclination towards sustainability—The conceptual framework. Int. J. Organ. Anal.; 2023; 31, pp. 462-475. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-04-2021-2721]

29. Hill, C.W.; Jones, G.R.; Schilling, M.A. Strategic Management: Theory: An Integrated Approach; 9th ed. Cengage Learning: Boston, MA, USA, 2014.

30. Fadeeva, Z. Promise of sustainability collaboration—Potential fulfilled?. J. Clean. Prod.; 2005; 13, pp. 165-174. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(03)00125-2]

31. Seuring, S.; Gold, S. Sustainability management beyond corporate boundaries: From stakeholders to performance. J. Clean. Prod.; 2013; 56, pp. 1-6. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.033]

32. Harvey, G.; Hodder, A.; Brammer, S. Trade union participation in CSR deliberation: An evaluation. Ind. Relat. J.; 2017; 48, pp. 42-55. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/irj.12167]

33. Pinheiro, A.B.; Oliveira, M.C.; Lozano, M.B. The mirror effect: Influence of national governance on environmental disclosure in coordinated economies. J. Glob. Responsib.; 2022; 13, pp. 380-395. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JGR-01-2022-0009]

34. D’souza, C.; Taghian, M. Small and medium size firm’s marketing competitive advantage and environmental initiatives in the Middle East. J. Strat. Mark.; 2018; 26, pp. 568-582. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2017.1318945]

35. Guler, I.; Guillén, M.F.; Macpherson, J.M. Global competition, institutions, and the diffusion of organizational practices: The international spread of ISO 9000 quality certificates. Adm. Sci. Q.; 2002; 47, pp. 207-232. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3094804]

36. Haji, A.A.; Coram, P.; Troshani, I. Consequences of CSR reporting regulations worldwide: A review and research agenda. Account. Audit. Account. J.; 2023; 36, pp. 177-208. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-05-2020-4571]

37. Espinosa, C.; Rangel, G. What roles do civil society organizations play in monitoring and reviewing the Sustainable Development Goals? An exploration of cases from Ecuador, Colombia, and Argentina. Tapuya Lat. Am. Sci. Technol. Soc.; 2022; 5, 2143669. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/25729861.2022.2143669]

38. Gellers, J.C. Crowdsourcing global governance: Sustainable development goals, civil society, and the pursuit of democratic legitimacy. Int. Environ. Agreem. Politics Law Econ.; 2016; 16, pp. 415-432. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10784-016-9322-0]

39. Sénit, C.A. Leaving no one behind? The influence of civil society participation on the Sustainable Development Goals. Environ. Plan. C Politics Space; 2020; 38, pp. 693-712. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2399654419884330]

40. Saner, R.; You, L.; Nguyen, M. Monitoring the SDGs: Digital and social technologies to ensure citizen participation, inclusiveness and transparency. Dev. Policy Rev.; 2020; 38, pp. 483-500. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12433]

41. Almeida, T.A.N.; García-Sánchez, I.M. Sociopolitical and economic elements to explain the environmental performance of countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2017; 24, pp. 3006-3026. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-8061-7]

42. Boodoo, M.U. The Influence of Unions on CSR: Is There a Trade-Off Between Employee-Oriented and Non–Employee-Oriented Policies?. Br. J. Ind. Relat.; 2020; 58, pp. 816-843. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjir.12530]

43. Colombo, S.; Guerci, M.; Miandar, T. What Do Unions and Employers Negotiate Under the Umbrella of Corporate Social Responsibility? Comparative Evidence from the Italian Metal and Chemical Industries. J. Bus. Ethics; 2019; 155, pp. 445-462. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3503-9]

44. Alam, A.; Ali Shah, S.Z. The Role of Press Freedom in Economic Development: A Global Perspective. J. Media Econ.; 2013; 26, pp. 4-20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08997764.2012.755986]

45. Ike, G.N.; Jaff, Y.D.; Aghazadeh, S. An empirical analysis of the global environmental impact of press freedom: The role of internet access and industry size in 153 countries. J. Clean. Prod.; 2022; 339, 130719. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130719]

46. Pinheiro, A.B.; Dos Santos, J.I.A.S.; Cherobim, A.P.M.S.; Segatto, A.P. What drives environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance? The role of institutional quality. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J.; 2023; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-03-2023-0091]

47. El Ghoul, S.; Guedhami, O.; Nash, R.; Patel, A. New Evidence on the Role of the Media in Corporate Social Responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics; 2019; 154, pp. 1051-1079. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3354-9]

48. Orzes, G.; Moretto, A.M.; Moro, M.; Rossi, M.; Sartor, M.; Caniato, F.; Nassimbeni, G. The impact of the United Nations global compact on firm performance: A longitudinal analysis. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2020; 227, 107664. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107664]

49. Botzen, W.; Duijndam, S.; van Beukering, P. Lessons for climate policy from behavioral biases towards COVID-19 and climate change risks. World Dev.; 2021; 137, 105214. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105214]

50. García-Meca, E.; Martínez-Ferrero, J. Is SDG reporting substantial or symbolic? An examination of controversial and environmentally sensitive industries. J. Clean. Prod.; 2021; 298, 126781.

51. Akadiri, S.S.; Adebayo, T.S. The criticality of financial risk to environment sustainability in top carbon emitting countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2022; 29, pp. 84226-84242. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21687-9]

52. Ofori, E.K.; Onifade, S.T.; Ali, E.B.; Alola, A.A.; Zhang, J. Achieving carbon neutrality in post COP26 in BRICS, MINT, and G7 economies: The role of financial development and governance indicators. J. Clean. Prod.; 2023; 387, 135853. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.135853]

53. Șerban, R.A.; Mihaiu, D.M.; Țichindelean, M. Environment, Social, and Governance Score and Value Added Impacts on Market Capitalization: A Sectoral-Based Approach. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 2069. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14042069]

54. DasGupta, R.; Kumar, S.; Pathak, R. Multinational enterprises’ internationalization and adoption of sustainable development goals. Int. J. Manag. Finance; 2022; 18, pp. 617-638. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJMF-09-2021-0416]

55. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis; 8th ed. Cengage Learning: Boston, MA, USA, 2019.

56. Hartmann, J.; Uhlenbruck, K. National institutional antecedents to corporate environmental performance. J. World Bus.; 2015; 50, pp. 729-741. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2015.02.001]

57. Jackson, G.; Apostolakou, A. Corporate Social Responsibility in Western Europe: An Institutional Mirror or Substitute?. J. Bus. Ethics; 2010; 94, pp. 371-394. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0269-8]

58. Matten, D.; Moon, J. “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Acad. Manag. Rev.; 2008; 33, pp. 404-424. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.31193458]

59. Pinheiro, A.B.; Sampaio, T.S.L.; Rodrigues, R.C.; Batistella, A.J. Democracy, corruption and civil liberties: Does national context influence corporate carbon disclosure?. Rev. De Adm. Da UFSM; 2022; 15, pp. 434-452. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5902/1983465969190]

60. Izugbara, C.; Sebany, M.; Wekesah, F.; Ushie, B. “The SDGs are not God”: Policy-makers and the queering of the Sustainable Development Goals in Africa. Dev. Policy Rev.; 2022; 40, e12558. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12558]

61. Kanso, A.M.; Nelson, R.A.; Kitchen, P.J. BP and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill: A case study of how company management employed public relations to restore a damaged brand. J. Mark. Commun.; 2020; 26, pp. 703-731. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2018.1559218]