INTRODUCTION
1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
The notion of “sustainable development” started being employed at a widespread scale after
being presented the Brundland report, “Our Common Future”. “Sustainable development aims to
meet today's needs and aspirations without jeopardizing the ability to meet tomorrow's.”
Reporting on sustainable development became a way for large corporations to demonstrate their
commitment to the cause. (Carp, Mihai, Pavaloaia, Leontina, Afrasinei, Georgescu, and Iuliana,
2019).
Companies respond to societal pressures by adopting sustainable reporting as a tool for
validating the socially responsible behavior imposed by the external environment in which they
run their business, as part of a social contract espoused by legitimacy theory. Companies also see
the instrumental significance of disclosing social responsibility information in enhancing
economic performance, and submit such data to improve their image and lessen the negative
impact of their own actions, according to the voluntary disclosure thesis (Carp et al., 2019).
Firms' transparency issues have long been a component of their daily operations. The availability
of information on companies is critical for investors and other stakeholders to make good capital
allocation decisions and avert any imminent hazard in our economies.(Alareeni & Hamdan,
2020).
Firms aim to present a clear image of their corporate responsibility procedures and initiatives to
all stakeholders. As a result, during the past two decades, corporate disclosure of environmental,
social, and governance (ESG) issues has evolved in a number of ways. Furthermore, an
increasing number of companies are engaging in a broad range of economic, social,
environmental, and governance disclosure initiatives, and this critical subject has garnered a lot
of attention (Oncioiu et al., 2020).
Consumers, workers, and investors are putting increasing pressure on American firms to make
substantial contributions to the greater social good, according to a recent analysis from Aflac on
corporate social responsibility (CSR). According to the survey, 77 percent of customers and 73
percent of investors would be more willing to buy a company's products or services if it
demonstrated a commitment to tackling social, economic, and environmental challenges.
Furthermore, nearly half of respondents said firms should “make the world a better place,”
compared to only 37% who said making money for shareholders is more essential(Hold, 2019).
The Director General of the Securities and Exchange Commission, ‘Reverend Daniel
Ogbarmey Tetteh, has stated that listed firms must prioritize sustainability reporting over profit
considerations in order to protect the environment. To that aim, he urged publicly traded
companies to improve their sustainability reporting in line with global disclosure requirements,
emphasizing that corporate executive should take a long-term view of the business and avoid the
typical short-term profit goals just for the benefit of shareholders. Mr. Tetteh, who delivered the
warning during a sustainability reporting event in Accra on March 9, 2020, stated that
environmental sustainability had become a significant global concern for company
sustainability’.
From the 25th to the 27th of September 2015, leaders of state and government and high
representatives met at the United Nations Headquarters in New York to agree on a new set of
global sustainable development objectives. The goal is to create balanced and integrated
sustainable development in all three dimensions: economic, social, and environmental. To attain
these objectives, governments are taking steps to ensure that their enterprises pay close attention
to the economic, social, and environmental aspects of their operations in order to support Agenda
2030 (Sustainable Development Solutions Network, 2015).
It is critical that firms operating in Ghana pay attention to economic, social, and
environmental issues. Businesses must account for all parts of their operations. The majority of
the environmental problems that our country, Ghana, faces are generated by the operations of
these enterprises. Land degradation, mining issues, inadequate waste management and the
emission of harmful compounds into the atmosphere that cause respiratory diseases in humans
are all severe difficulties that our country faces. Businesses should report on their economic,
social, and environmental actions as a matter of course.
Firms listed on the stock exchange must seek to look beyond profit and embrace the
concept of sustainability which helps to sustain every business entity. It is with this regard that,
this study seeks to examine the sustainability reports of listed firms in Ghana and the impact of
these reports on the firm’s value.
1.3 Statement of the problem
Many researches on sustainability reporting have focused on companies in developed Asia,
Europe, and the United States. The majority of studies looked at the effects of sustainability
reporting on a company's profitability. Other research looked at the effect of sustainability
reports on a company's growth. (Ali et al., 2019) The impact of reporting on sustainability in
economic decisions made by investors using GRI indicators, as applied to banks and industry
sectors listed on the Iraq Stock Exchange. The findings suggest that reporting sustainability has
no statistically significant impact on investors' economic judgments. (Ching et al., 2017) verified
whether the sustainability reporting quality would affect corporate financial performance (CFP)
among the firms listed on Corporate Sustainability Index (ISE) and to examine the quality of
information disclosed in their sustainability reports (SR). The findings were that, there was no
association between accounting and market-based variables and the reporting quality, and
although the quality disclosure is improving throughout the years studied, the scores are still low.
(Zahid & Ghazali, 2015) examined the implementation of corporate sustainability (CS)
practice by Malaysian Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) and property listed companies,
following the three dimensional (economic, environmental, and social) framework of corporate
sustainability. The content analysis indicates that the majority of companies among the sample
have their social responsibility and sustainability strategies for the satisfaction of stakeholders
and legitimizing firm practices.
Meanwhile, the crucial question firms and shareholders must answer is whether sustainability
disclosure practices can be turned into positive firm performance. Prior research has tried to test
the effect of sustainability disclosure practices on firm performance.
(Mensah, 2019) sustainability disclosure issues are interconnected; therefore, considering only
one dimension could be problematic. A limited number of sustainability disclosure studies focus
on all three dimensions of sustainability reporting and their impact on performance in a single
setting more important, the findings of these studies include conflicting perspectives and
inconclusive findings on whether sustainability disclosure and its dimensions have a positive,
negative or neutral impact on firm’s performance. Therefore, it is essential to focus on all
dimensions of sustainability reporting when testing their impact on firm performance.
The study will contributes to sustainability reporting prior literature by examining the
developments and improvements in sustainability reports disclosures of listed firms on the Ghana
stock exchange. The study will evaluate firms’ performance based on three dimensions: the
firm’s financial, operational and market performance indicators, return on equity (ROE), return
on assets (ROA) and the Tobin’s q. The study will also incorporate the influence of board
characteristics on sustainability reports of listed firms on the Ghana stock exchange.
1.4 objectives of the study
The general objectives of the study will be to analyse sustainability reports and firms value of
listed firms on Ghana stock exchange market. However the following will be the specific
objectives:
i.
To examine sustainability reports of listed firms on the Ghana stock exchange
ii.
To assess the impact of sustainability reports on the value of firms listed on the
Ghana stock exchange.
iii.
To identify the influence of board characteristics on sustainability reports of listed
firms on the Ghana stock exchange.
1.5 Research questions
Answers to the following research questions will be sought to achieve the objectives of the
study.
i.
What are the factors that affect sustainability reports of firms listed on the Ghana
stock exchange?
ii.
What are the impacts of sustainability reports on the value of firms listed on the
Ghana stock exchange?
iii.
To what extent do board characteristics influence sustainability reports of firms listed
on the Ghana stock exchange?
Literature review
Businesses nowadays operate in a global dynamic environment. At the same time,
today’s dynamic business environment encounters certain threats, which are needed to be
addressed and controlled for the sake of stakeholders’ protection and future generations
(Hongming et al., 2020). These issues cannot be compromised as organizations are socially
responsible for sustainability impact and environ- mental issues, because the entire corporate
world depends on these resources to operate. Unlike financial reporting, sustainability
reporting is voluntary in most countries (Zelazna et al., 2020).
For this reason, most companies presenting information about social and environmental
protection actions use voluntary reporting systems, such as the guidelines in the Global
Reporting Initiative (GRI) and in recent years, the integrated reporting developed by the
International Integrated Reporting Council(GRI et al., 2021) . Although efforts were made
toward standardizing the information regarding sustainable reporting (GRI ), there are still
differences in the content and quality of reports compiled. The lack of compulsoriness and
standardization in this field leads to inconsistencies in the companies’ assessment and
reporting of sustainability(Hahn & Kühnen, 2013). This vulnerability is also generated by
the fact that, unlike financial statements, no certification is required for these reports.
Greater transparency and accountability, as insisted upon by a larger set of stakeholders,
have now become essential requirements for corporate success. Corporate sustainability has
become an integral part of corporate life and corporate strategy(Aras & Crowther, 2008) and
is of paramount importance in creating a transparent environment within the business. In this
context, SR is acknowledged as an important practice that contributes towards fulfilling
stakeholders’ diverse demands (Genoud & Vignau, 2017). Study made by (Xinwa, 2018),
theorized through the supply and demand model that investing in initiatives such as social
and environmental issues maximize the market value of the company. Despite those findings,
companies are still reluctant to invest in such initiatives. The role of stakeholders such as
employees, shareholders, customers and environment becomes more and more important for
the sustainability of organizations.
In the mid-1980’s a stakeholder approach emerged due to rising concerns of managers who
were facing turbulences and changes in their environment. Traditional strategies framework
were not providing any help to understand the phenomena and to find out solutions; there
was a need for a new framework (Genoud & Vignau, 2017). ‘Freeman stated in his book in
1984 that “Our current theories are inconsistent with both quantity and kinds of change that
are occurring in the business environment of the 1980’s… A new conceptual framework is
needed” (pg. 5). Hence, the stakeholder theory became a solution. However, the idea of a
stakeholder approach was not entirely new.
Indeed, pioneers from the Stanford Research Institute engaged research in the 1960’s to
elaborate this stakeholder approach. They argued that it was necessary for firms to consider
the concerns of every stakeholder and not only the shareholders, for a long term success. At
the time when they were using the word stakeholders, they were already referring to
customers, employees, suppliers, lenders and society(Saleh et al., 1989). This development
had a small impact on managerial theories at the time but became a management practice
decades afterwards thanks to further studies such as Freeman’s book. The stakeholder
approach, developed by Freeman, explored the concept of strategic management surpassing
its original economic stand by considering stakeholders as “any group or individual who is
affected by or can affect the achievement of an organisation’s objectives”. The 21st Century
is the century of “Managing for Stakeholders”. Subsequently, the stakeholder theory is of
significant importance in our study since a natural fit exists between the concept of
sustainability reports and company’s stakeholders.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Stakeholder theory
(N. Burhan & Rahmanti, 2012) Stakeholder theory has both an ethical (moral) or normative
branch and a positive (managerial) branch. The moral (normative) perspective of Stake- holder
Theory argues that all stakeholders have the right to be treated fairly by a business entity, and the
issues of stakeholder power are not directly relevant. Management of the business organization
should be for the benefit of all the stakeholders. Within the ethical (moral) or normative
perspective of Stakeholder Theory, all stakeholder have certain rights that must not be violated.
It can be acknowledged that this concept can be extended to a notion that all stakeholders also
have a right to be provided with information about how the business entity’s operation affects
them(Yu & Zhao, 2015).
Non-financial corporate performance has begun to capture the attention of increasing number of
investment professionals as they realize that profitability alone is not sufficient for a firm’s longterm growth. By looking beyond economic, strategic and operational factors to include
environmental and social considerations, sustainability reporting helps boost corporate
transparency, strengthen risk management, promote stakeholder engagement and improve
communications with stakeholders (Loh,Lawrence,thomas, Wang and Yu 2017) .
Companies are also largely accountable for the impact of their activity on the community.
However, it is often difficult for external stakeholders to assess the actual sustainability
performance of the company. Therefore, to minimize information asymmetry between
companies and their stakeholders, companies are expected to comply with sustainability
transparency standards. Accordingly, sustainability and corporate social responsibility reports
have become a major theme in management and accounting. (Khaghaany et al., 2019)
As the number of sustainability reports continues to grow, global companies are announcing their
efforts to enhance their environmental and social performance, known as sustainability, and to
meet growing pressure to do more to promote environmental and social responsibility.
Companies are therefore developing new communication methods and attempting to integrate
sustainability in strategic performance measurement systems(Tempero, 2019).
Legitimacy theory
(N. Burhan & Rahmanti, 2012) states that legitimacy theory asserts that organizations
continually seek to ensure that they operate within the bounds and norms of their respective
societies, that is, they attempt to ensure that their activities are perceived by outside parties as
being legitimate.(Cuganesan et al., 2007) Legitimacy theory relies upon the notion that there is a
“social contract between the entity and the society in which it operates. The theory is used to
explain the expectations that society has about how entities should conduct their operations.
Legitimacy theory emphasizes that the business entities must consider the rights of the society at
large, not only those of its investors(Gibassier & Unerman, 2021). Failure to adhere to societal
expectations may lead to sanctions by the society. With respect to legitimacy theory, business
entities would voluntarily report their activities if management deems it right that those activities
were expected by communities in which it operate(Burlea-schiopoiu & Popa, 2013).
Sustainability disclosure is a response to pressure exerted upon firms to conduct their activities
in a way acceptable to the society ((Shamil et al., 2014). Among the theories adopted to explain
sustainability disclosures, the legitimacy theory has been found to be the most successful (Vitolla
& Rubino, 2017). Legitimacy theory extends the principal-agent relationship to include a wider
group of stakeholders representing societal interests, and this conceptualization broadens the role
of corporate governance mechanism to align firm activities with the wider interest of
stakeholders(Ayuso & Argandoña, 2009). Thus, managers are motivated to disclose more
information to support their claim on legitimacy.
Firms value
To satisfy the growing information requirements of stakeholders who look for it in
firms’disclosure reports, the emphasis has to be placed on the usefulness, relevance and, value of
the information contained within those reports ((Swarnapali, 2019)) value relevance is an
ongoing theme in accounting and finance literature. Firms reports on sustainability because it is
acknowledged that such activities when communicated through corporate sustainability reports
lead to sustainable competitive advantage(Peters & Simaens, 2020). Corporate sustianability
provides various benefits to the firm. For instance, making investments in firms sustainability
activities may help the firm in developing capabilities and resources(Camilleri, 2017). These
capabilities and resources related to corporate culture and technical know-how, which are
acquired internally, can eventually lead to more efficient utilisation of resources. Such
investments may also lead to the creation of various essential intangible resources which are
mostly associated with employees. Firm’s image is one of the fundamental intangible resources
that lead to competitive advantage. Firms with a better Sustainability image are able to develop
and maintain a healthy relationship with investors, suppliers, bankers, customers and competitors
(Laskar & Gopal Maji, 2018) Through corporate sustainability report, firms are able to attract
and retain better employees and enhance employees’ motivation, as well as their loyalty and
commitment towards the firm, which, in turn, improves firms’ profitability and
value(Strandberg, 2009). In the long run, sustainability report brings better benefits by reducing
the cost of conflicts with stakeholders and ensures a healthy relationship with them. It also helps
in building a reputation and enhances firm’s productivity(Jiao & Xie, 2013). These better
corporate sustainability practices are subject to more predictable earnings and lower the risk for
investors and economic uncertainty(Endris, 2008). Firms get the benefit of corporate
sustainability from the market only when corporate sustainability activities are communicated in
the form of a report (Michelon et al., 2015). In order to derive these benefits, CS reporting has
become a necessary requirement for entering the market.
Board size
Extant literature on board size suggests two contrasting views. One view argues for larger
boards and the other view argues for smaller boards. The first view argues that larger boards are
inefficient because they result in weaker control of management and increases the agency cost.
However, this view is countered by stating that large boards are less likely to be influenced by
management(Hidayat & Utama, 2015).
Although small boards are considered efficient they are likely to be influenced by managers.
Furthermore, it is argued that large boards allow including directors with different
expertise(García Martín & Herrero, 2018). Previous studies have found a positive association
between board size and voluntary disclosures. Similarly, studies exploring the association
between board size and sustainability disclosures have reported a positive association ((Shamil et
al., 2014).
Data and methodology
Study design
A qualitative and quantitative approach will be used to achieve the objectives of the study.
Sample Size
The study covers companies listed on the Ghana stock exchange. The total sample size will be 32
amongst which companies that do not report on sustainability are excluded.
Data collection procedure
The researcher’s Sources of data will be derived from the annual report of listed firms. Data for
this research is secondary data. For sustainability reporting and firm status, all information the
researcher will consider is publicly available, of which major sources are the annual reports and
sustainability reports or equivalents if applicable. In this study, sustainability reporting refers to
the disclosure of non-financial information, including aspects such as governance, economic,
social and environmental.
We will take information disclosed by companies’ from 2008 up to 2018 into account.
Sustainability practices of companies disclosed on their corporate website, standalone
sustainability report, and/or in the annual report are considered. Data pertaining to board
characteristics will also be collected from the annual reports of the listed firms.
Data Analysis
Panel data, sometimes referred to as longitudinal data, is data that contains observations about
different cross sections across time. Examples of groups that may make up panel data series
include countries, firms, individuals, or demographic groups. There are number of advantages of
panel data: Panel data contains more information, more variability and more efficiency than pure
time series data or cross-sectional data. Panel data can detect and measure statistical effects that
pure time series or cross-sectional data can’t.
To summarize, explain, and investigate trends in the acquired data, the researcher will employ
descriptive statistics. The study topics will next be tested using panel data multiple regression
analysis. Multicollinearity tests are also performed to confirm that the variables are not
correlated. Fixed effects (FE) models and random effects (RE) models are the two basic
modeling strategies used to evaluate panel data (Dougherty, 2011). Unlike FE models, RE
models presume that differences between entities are random and unrelated to the independent
variables in the model (Gujarati and Porter, 2009).
Measurement of financial performance
The financial performance will be comprised of return on asset (ROA), return on equity
(ROE), stock price ratio and Tobin's q, all of which are in line with past research. (Oware &
Mallikarjunappa, 2020). The return on assets (ROA) is the ratio of net income to total assets. The
choice of ROA has an impact on a company's ability to replace fixed assets. (Oware &
Mallikarjunappa, 2020). ROE is the net income over shareholder equity and it measures how a
firm uses shareholders’ funds to generate profit.(Oware & Mallikarjunappa, 2020).
It is calculated as ROE net income /total equity multiplied by100 where net income is net profit
after tax and total equity is the shareholders fund. The study will use stock price ratio (SPR) as a
variable indicator for measuring firm performance. SPR = current stock price divided previous
stock price multiplied by 100%. Other studies have used this variable and mostly show a positive
sign(Oware & Mallikarjunappa, 2020). The study also sought to measure the reaction from
shareholders from the stock market. Tobin’s q measures firm value. Tobin’s q = (market value of
equity + book value of total liability/ total Asset.
Board characteristics
Board size will be one of the study's independent variables and board independence, because
board size and firm size have been found to have a positive link, and firm size is commonly
evaluated using the natural log of total assets, board size will be assessed by the natural log of
number of directors in this study (Alshetwi, 2017).
Alareeni, B. A., & Hamdan, A. (2020). ESG impact on performance of US S&P 500-listed firms.
Corporate Governance (Bingley), 20(7), 1409–1428. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-06-20200258
Ali, M. N., Hameedi, K. S., & Almagtome, A. H. (2019). Does sustainability reporting via
accounting information system influence investment decisions in Iraq? International
Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 9(9), 294–312.
Alshetwi, M. (2017). The Association between Board Size, Independence and Firm
Performance: Evidence from Saudi Arabia. Type: Double Blind Peer Reviewed
International Research Journal Publisher: Global Journals Inc, 17(1), 17–28.
Aras, G. A., & Crowther, D. (2008). Corporate Sustainability Reporting: A Study in
Disingenuity? In Globalization and the Good Corporation. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94007-0818-1_19
Ayuso, S., & Argandoña, A. (2009). Responsible corporate governance: Towards a stakeholder
board of directors? Corporate Ownership and Control, 6(4 A), 9–19.
https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv6i4p1
Burlea-schiopoiu, A., & Popa, I. (2013). Encyclopedia of Corporate Social Responsibility.
Encyclopedia of Corporate Social Responsibility, December 2016.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28036-8
Camilleri, M. A. (2017). Corporate sustainability and responsibility: creating value for business,
society and the environment. Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility,
2(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41180-017-0016-5
Carp, M., Pavaloaia, L., Afrasinei, M. B., & Georgescu, I. E. (2019). Is sustainability reporting a
business strategy for firm’s growth? Empirical study on the Romanian capital market.
Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030658
Ching, H. Y., Gerab, F., & Toste, T. H. (2017). The Quality of Sustainability Reports and
Corporate Financial Performance: Evidence From Brazilian Listed Companies. SAGE
Open, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017712027
Cuganesan, S., Ward, L., & Guthrie, J. (2007). Legitimacy theory: A story of reporting social
and environmental matters within the Australian food and beverage industry. …
Interdisciplinary Research in …, 1–35.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1360518
Endris, S. (2008). Gene Conserve - Articles - Articles - - Articles - - Articles - Gene Conserve Articles - Articles - Volume 7 - Issue 30 - October / December , 2008 . Production, 7(27),
2008–2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s
García Martín, C. J., & Herrero, B. (2018). Boards of directors: composition and effects on the
performance of the firm. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja , 31(1), 1015–1041.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2018.1436454
Genoud, J., & Vignau, C. (2017). The impact of stakeholders ’ influence on transparency of
sustainability report in Sweden within the GRI framework. 1–68.
Gibassier, D., & Unerman, J. (2021). An overview of legitimacy theory as applied within the
social and environmental accounting literature. Sustainability Accounting and
Accountability, 2014, 266–290. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315848419-28
GRI, SASB, PWC, The Impact Management Project, & Climateworks Foundation. (2021). A
Practical Guide to Sustainability Reporting Using GRI and SASB Standards AND
CLIMATEWORKS FOUNDATION.
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(October 2017), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005
Hidayat, A. A., & Utama, S. (2015). Board Characteristics and Firm Performance: Evidence
from Indonesia. International Research Journal of Business Studies, 8(3), 137–154.
https://doi.org/10.21632/irjbs.8.3.137-154
Hold, I. (2019). Consumers , Investors Hold.
Hongming, X., Ahmed, B., Hussain, A., Rehman, A., Ullah, I., & Khan, F. U. (2020).
Sustainability Reporting and Firm Performance : The Demonstration of Pakistani Firms.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020953180
Jiao, Y., & Xie, W. (2013). How does CSR influence a firm ’ s profitability ?
Khaghaany, M., Kbelah, S., & Almagtome, A. (2019). Value relevance of sustainability
reporting under an accounting information system: Evidence from the tourism industry.
African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 8(SpecialEdition), 1–12.
Laskar, N., & Gopal Maji, S. (2018). Disclosure of corporate sustainability performance and firm
performance in Asia. Asian Review of Accounting, 26(4), 414–443.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ARA-02-2017-0029
Loh, L., Thomas, T., & Wang, Y. (2017). Sustainability Reporting and Firm Value : Evidence
from Singapore-Listed Companies. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9112112
Mensah, J. (2019). Sustainable development: Meaning, history, principles, pillars, and
implications for human action: Literature review. Cogent Social Sciences, 5(1).
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2019.1653531
Michelon, G., Pilonato, S., & Ricceri, F. (2015). CSR reporting practices and the quality of
disclosure: An empirical analysis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 33(November), 59–
78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2014.10.003
N. Burhan, A. H., & Rahmanti, W. (2012). the Impact of Sustainability Reporting on Company
Performance. Journal of Economics, Business, and Accountancy | Ventura, 15(2), 257.
https://doi.org/10.14414/jebav.v15i2.79
Oncioiu, I., Popescu, D. M., Aviana, A. E., Şerban, A., Rotaru, F., Petrescu, M., & MarinPantelescu, A. (2020). The role of environmental, social, and governance disclosure in
financial transparency. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(17), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12176757
Oware, K. M., & Mallikarjunappa, T. (2020). CSR expenditure, mandatory CSR reporting and
financial performance of listed firms in India: an institutional theory perspective. Meditari
Accountancy Research, ahead-of-p(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/medar-05-20200896
Peters, J., & Simaens, A. (2020). Integrating sustainability into corporate strategy: A case study
of the textile and clothing industry. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(15), 1–35.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156125
Saleh, M. N., Moore, D. L., Lee, J. Y., & LoBuglio, A. F. (1989). Monocyte-platelet interaction
in immune and nonimmune thrombocytopenia. Blood, 74(4), 1328–1331.
https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.v74.4.1328.1328
Shamil, M. M., Shaikh, J. M., Ho, P. L., & Krishnan, A. (2014). The influence of board
characteristics on sustainability reporting Empirical evidence from Sri Lankan firms. Asian
Review of Accounting, 22(2), 78–97. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARA-09-2013-0060
Strandberg, C. (2009). Using Corporate Social Responsibility to Attract, Motivate and Retain
Human Resources. Thesis, 1–96.
Sustainable Development Solutions Network. (2015). Getting started with the Sustainable
Development Goals: A Guide for Stakeholders. Sustainable Development Solutions
Network: A Global Initiative for the United Nations, December, 1–38.
Swarnapali, R. N. C. (2019). Sustainability disclosure and earnings informativeness: evidence
from Sri Lanka. Asian Journal of Accounting Research, 5(1), 33–46.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ajar-05-2019-0033
Tempero, M. (2019). The time has come! JNCCN Journal of the National Comprehensive
Cancer Network, 17(4), 295. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2019.0020
Vitolla, F., & Rubino, M. (2017). Legitimacy Theory and Sustainability Reporting. Evidence
From Italy. Global and National Business Theories and Practice: Bridging the Past With
the Future, April, 1918–1931.
Xinwa, L. (2018). The impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on the performance of selected
Small, Medium and Micro-sized Enterprises in the Butterworth area.
http://openscholar.dut.ac.za/handle/10321/3282
Yu, M., & Zhao, R. (2015). Sustainability and firm valuation: An international investigation.
International Journal of Accounting and Information Management, 23(3), 289–307.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJAIM-07-2014-0050
Zahid, M., & Ghazali, Z. (2015). Corporate sustainability practices among Malaysian REITs and
property listed companies. World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable
Development, 12(2), 100–118. https://doi.org/10.1108/wjstsd-02-2015-0008
Zelazna, A., Bojar, M., & Bojar, E. (2020). Corporate social responsibility towards the
environment in Lublin region, Poland: A comparative study of 2009 and 2019.
Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114463