International Journal of Financial, Accounting, and Management (IJFAM)

ISSN: 2656-3355, Vol 5, No 2, 2023, 195-213 https://doi.org/10.35912/ijfam.v5i2.1365

Factors influencing the environmental

accounting disclosure practices for sustainable
development: A systematic literature review
Md. Saheb Ali Mondal1, Nazma Akter2, Mohammad Rashed Hasan Polas3*
School of Business, Ahsanullah University of Science and Technology and Bangladesh University of
Professionals, Dhaka, Bangladesh1
School of Business, Ahsanullah University of Science and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh2
Department of Business Administration, Sonargaon University (SU), Dhaka, Bangladesh3
saheb.sob@aust.edu1, nazma.sob@aust.edu2, rashedhasanpalash@gmail.com3*
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to synthesize a testable conceptual
framework that illustrates the link between various factors and
environmental accounting disclosure practices.
Research methodology: A systematic review approach was used to
examine publications published from 2001 to 2023. Only the
referenced studies were employed as secondary data to identify the
factors for synthesizing the conceptual framework.
Results: Most publications were studies on emerging nations and
showed an expanding trend in disclosures. The findings showed that
Article History firm size, profitability, leverage, industry type, and ownership are
Received on 25 December 2022 critical motivators of environmental accounting disclosure (EADs).
1st Revision on 7 February 2023 Moreover, this study summarizes the intriguing concerns not
2nd Revision on 10 February 2023 addressed through a conceptual framework. This indicates a
Accepted on 6 March 2023 possible hypothetical link between these factors for future studies
on EADs. Future reviews could boost firms' EADs to help society
achieve clean and healthy environments.
Originality: The two conceptual frameworks proposed in this study
provide new insights into future research and management
ramifications.
Keywords: Systematic review, Determinants, Environmental
accounting disclosures, Sustainable development
How to Cite: Mondal, M. S. A., Akter, N., & Polas, M. R. H.
(2023). Factors influencing the environmental accounting
disclosure practices for sustainable development: A systematic
literature review. International Journal of Financial, Accounting,
and Management, 5(2), 195-213.
1. Introduction
The study of social and environmental disclosure has a long and rich history, with a considerable
increase over the last two decades (Ali et al., 2017; Ali et al., & Husnain, 2022; Fifka, 2013; Kuncara,
2022). This enthusiasm has been shared by Scholars, environmental activists, educators, lawmakers,
government, local communities, customers, and organizations. Therefore, companies are facing dual
effects and problems with the pressure to engage in environmental activities (Anoke, Onu, & Agagbo,
2022; Buniamin, Alrazi, Johari, & Rahman, 2011; Hawlader, Rana, Kalam, & Polas, 2021; Qiu,
Shaukat, & Tharyan, 2016) and development (El Fallahi, Ibenrissoul, & Adil, 2022; Kooli, lock Son, &
Beloufa, 2022). Industrial development helps the nation realize a sustainable economy, although it
negatively affects the environment (Gumbo et al., 2022; Isaifan and Kooli, 2022). Therefore, balanced
development is required through green industry, production, and growth to balance this relationship.
Environmental accounting works by measuring the cost of financial, social, and environmental issues
related to pollution to make the environment healthy, eco-friendly, and sustainable. In line with this,
environmental and social disclosures have potential impacts on a firm’s sustainability. Larger, highly
indebted, and listed firms have greater environmental disclosures that make companies socially
acceptable and secure (Clarkson, Li, Richardson, and Vasvari (2008) Fortanier, Kolk, and Pinkse
(2011). Most studies show that some factors influence environmental accounting disclosures. Various
factors of companies in different sectors have positive, negative, or no relationship with environmental
accounting disclosure. These reviews offer significant insights but have concentrated on a few
determinants with less specific future directions. Social and environmental disclosure deals with
information on operations, plans, ambitions, and public image in connection with the environmental,
employees, customers, and community (Afrin, Sehreen, Polas, & Sharin, 2020; Gray, Javad, Power, &
Sinclair, 2001; Suileek & Alshurafat, 2022). Therefore, environmental accounting should provide
common disclosure to remove asymmetric and incomplete information. This study aims to ensure full
disclosure with comparability and consistency. Based on a review of 81 papers published over the last
23 years, this study aimed to answer the following questions:
1. What is the current status of EAD worldwide?
2. What are the influential determinants with positive, negative, or zero effects on the EAD?
3. What is the next venture in a specific sector or country?

These influential factors may guide regulators and corporate leaders in incorporating the EAD agenda
into their rules or standards. The proposed framework may also be used in future studies to increase the
understanding of EAD determinants. This systematic literature review examined and identified various
determinants that may affect and change EADs. Additionally, the study synthesized a testable
conceptual framework that indicates the relationship between determinants and EADs.

1.1. Related Studies

Selim (2018) stated that a firm should obey the national regulations, follow the buyers' code, and aim
to exceed the needs of the country and customers. According to O’Dwyer (2011), current reporting
practices are insufficient for improving openness and accountability. However, Wong, Wong, Li, and
Chen (2016) found that sustainability information disclosure lowers asymmetry and improves
transparency and accountability for long-term implications. Annumeet and Singh (2017), Ullah (2014),
Steinisch et al. (2013), and Shil and Iqbal (2005) used content analysis and a questionnaire survey to
find that developing countries are still at a preliminary stage of sustainable development. Bangladeshi
listed textile companies with poor and positive disclosures, whose variation is considerably high and
hides negative activities. Kamal and Deegan (2013) and Ullah (2014) stated that Bangladesh textile and
garments companies are releasing environmental and social governance data more than what is required
by the Bangladesh Securities and Exchange Commission (BSEC). Christensen (2016) states that
companies providing voluntary disclosure are protected against lawsuits or prices falling from any
future misconduct. Moreover, Chen, Hung, and Wang (2018) found that mandating CSR reduces a
company’s profitability. This means that EADs must first be identified before mandating corporate
social and environmental disclosure and standards. As a result, standards or guidelines would be more
effective both nationally and globally.

2. Research methodology
This study employs content analysis to investigate disclosure determinants based on a review of the
factors of social and environmental accounting studies. A well-defined multistep strategy (Ali et al.,
2022; Monteiro, Cepêda, & Silva, 2022; Zahoor, Al‐Tabbaa, Khan, & Wood, 2020) was used to
accomplish this systematic literature review (Ali et al., 2022; Denyer, Tranfield, Buchanan, & Bryman,
2009; Polas, Tabash, Jahanshahi, & Schmitt, 2022; Sikder, Rana, & Polas, 2021; Suileek & Alshurafat,
2022) to ensure robustness and eliminate rigidness (Cacciotti & Hayton, 2015). The steps comprised (i)
formulating the study questions, (ii) fixing the scope and boundaries, (iii) identifying, screening, and
selecting the required articles, and iv) analyzing and synthesizing the findings.

This systematic literature review focuses on the determinants of environmental accounting disclosure
from 2001 to 2023, as supported by Qian et al. (2021). However, this study attempted to answer the
questions described in the Introduction section. The key terms are environmental accounting disclosure
and determinants of environmental accounting disclosure. Based on this, many keywords were created
to form a search string for this study. The Scopus index and a few other cited articles were included and

2023 | International Journal of Financial, Accounting, and Management/ Vol 5 No 2, 195-213

196
searched through Elsevier Science Direct, Emerald, Springer, Wiley Online Library, Taylor and
Francis, MDPI, AAA, Research gate, and Google Scholar. The goal was to generate a comprehensive
database based on articles written in English (Ali et al., 2022; Suileek & Alshurafat, 2022). Keywords
were used to search and identify articles for screening and selecting relevant studies. A total of 379
papers were downloaded before removing duplicates and irrelevant papers through an initial review of
the abstract. Therefore, 148 papers were selected for further screening, excluding books, book chapters,
and proceedings papers (Ali et al., 2022; Stumbitz, Lewis, & Rouse, 2018). All abstracts, introductions,
and conclusions of each paper were examined to determine their fit with the study title and objectives.
Finally, 81 samples more appropriate to this study were selected and given equal weight to avoid over-
reliance or under-reliance on each paper used for narrative analysis under specific dimensions. This
narrative analysis helps analyze a large body of literature (Ali et al., 2022; Nijmeijer, Fabbricotti, &
Huijsman, 2014; Seneviratne & Gunawardane, 2022; Zahoor et al., 2020) to extract the determinants.
An in-depth analysis of the findings was performed to identify the factors to formulate a framework for
future studies. A theoretical framework was used to examine the relationship between the factors and
environmental accounting disclosure practices.

2023 | International Journal of Financial, Accounting, and Management/ Vol 5 No 2, 195-213

197
Table 1. EADs from previous studies
Author Country Field of Factors used in the previous study Findings
Research
Ali et al. (2022) International Mixed Internal and external factors. External factors had a stronger influenced on social and environmental information reporting in
developing countries compared to internal factors.
Mondal (2021) Bangladesh Textile Efficiency and productivity: Sales, gross profit, net profit, Modern technology and efficient management can reduce inefficiency & increase productivity for
wages, cost of materials, fuel, power, and total assets. sustainable textile in Bangladesh.
Mohammad and Malaysia Mixed ESG disclosure, debt, firm performance, profitability, growth, ESG disclosure expanded positively firm performance even after moderating for competitive
Wasiuzzaman (2021) liquidity, cashflow, total assets and firm’s competitive advantage.
advantage.
Fuadah, Saftiana, Indonesia Manufacturing Organizational culture, environmental uncertainty, ED and environmental organizational structure significantly & positively related. Environmental
Kalsum, and Arisman management personnel value and environmental uncertainty and management personnel value had positive relation with structure and insignificant
(2021) organizational structure. relation between organizational culture and structure.
Ismail, Saleem, Zahra, Pakistan Mixed CSR information and GRI principles. Sampled firms disclosed qualitative information related to CSR following GRI principles.
Tufail, and Ali (2021) Companies disclosed precise, on-time and positive information and put less importance on the
balance of information.
Geerts, Dooms, and Stas International Port Firm size, sustainability report, financial performance, Proximity to a city, history data gathering, obtained social or environmental certifications are
(2021) country, and stakeholder inclusion, level of autonomy, significant determinants for sustainability reporting. There was no significant association between
environmental and social certification, data gathering and certain organizational characteristics and institutional pressures.
sustainability integration.
Khandelwal and India Mixed ROA, ROE, EPS, profit margin and total environmental Environmental disclosure had a significant relationship with ROA & ROE. no significant
Chaturvedi (2021) disclosure. relationship with EPS and Profit Margin.
Solikhah, Puteri, Indonesia Mixed Company size, financial performance, ISO, good corporate Company size and environmental performance positively and significantly influenced on the ED
Sarwono, Ulupui, and Al- governance, and environmental performance. but financial performance is negatively related.
Faryan (2021)
Bhatia and Makkar India Mixed Firm size, industry, environmental concern & board Most of the determinants are positively influenced on ED and increased corporate accountability.
(2020) independence.
Feng and Gao (2020) USA Mixed Size, ROA, capital intensity, realism, leverage counts, Environmentally sensitive companies had more disclosures that exhibits less optimism and more
optimism, certainty and environmental: strength, concerns and realism and certainty.
sensitive.
Jackson, Bartosch, International Mixed Non-financial disclosure regulation, level of CSR activity, Non-financial disclosure regulation had a significant negative effect on the level of CSR even after
Avetisyan, Kinderman, comparison firms’ size, return on assets, debt to asset ratio and R&D monitoring the firm level characteristics.
and Knudsen (2020) spending.
Maama (2021) South Africa Bank Firm value, size, age, political perspective and institutional All the determinants are positively associated with CSR disclosure that improved accounting
environment. practice.
Nguyen (2020) Vietnam Mixed Firm age, profitability, firm size, leverage and independent Environmental accounting information (EAI) was positively correlated with firm size, independent
auditors. auditor & short-term debt. Negative relation found of profitability and no relation of size with EAI
disclosure.
Utomo, Rahayu, Kaujan, Indonesia Mixed Firm value, firm size, leverage, environmental performance. Environmental performance (EP) had positive effect on firm value and ED but ED has not any
and Irwandi (2020) effect on firm value or EP.
Zamir, Shailer, and Saeed Pakistan Mixed Firm size & value, investment sensitivity and efficiency, Investment sensitivity had negative and all other variables had positive relation with CSR
(2022) regulatory pressure & environmental concern. disclosure.
Baalouch, Ayadi, and France Mixed Board diversity by gender and independence, environmental Environmental audit, female director and environmental performance were significantly related
Hussainey (2019) audit committee and performance, degree of pollution. with the quality of environmental disclosures but not with the independent director.
Hamrouni, Uyar, and Tunisia Mixed Firm size, profitability, stakeholder and regulatory pressure Firm size had no relation and all other determinants have positive relation with environmental &
Boussaada (2020) and eco-friendly practice. CSR disclosures.

2023 | International Journal of Financial, Accounting, and Management/ Vol 5 No 2, 195-213

198
I. Khan, Khan, and Pakistan & Turkey Mixed Firm size, board size, managerial ownership, environmental All determinants were positively associated with environmental disclosure and development.
Senturk (2019) concern, legal regulatory guidelines and management decision
making.
Matuszak, Różańska, and Poland Bank Firm size, board size, board leadership, legal regulatory All the determinants were positively motivated to CSR disclosure.
Macuda (2019) guideline, public welfare and managerial ownership
Sekhon and Kathuria India Mixed Firm size, industry size, market regulatory pressure, All the determinants were positively influenced on environmental disclosure.
(2020) environmental concern, social responsiveness and
competition.
Broadstock, Collins, UK Mixed Profitability (profit and ROE), company size (assets) and Profit and assets business performance were strongly associated with inverted U shape of
Hunt, and Vergos (2018) Tobin’s Q. voluntary disclosure but ROE and Tobin’Q is not strong.
Baldini, Maso, Cross country Mixed Country level characteristics (political, cultural & social Analysts’ coverage, leverage, cross-listing and size had positive and homogeneous effect on ESD.
Liberatore, Mazzi, and system) and firm level characteristics (cross-listing, size, and ESD also influenced by political, social and cultural system of the country.
Terzani (2018) leverage).
Dal Maso, Mazzi, Soscia, International Mixed Political, cultural, labor, environment, social & governance Political, cultural and labor issues were related to ESGD practices.
and Terzani (2018) disclosure (ESGD)
Gong and Ho (2018) China Mixed Tobin’s Q, ROA, PPE, CEO, size and ESGD. Firm value and ESG level were positively associated.
Li, Gong, Zhang, and UK Mixed PPE, total assets, company size, total debt, cash, profitability, ESG disclosures level was positively associated with the firm vale.
Koh (2018) CAPEX and Tobin’s Q.
Mehedy, Sajib, and Bangladesh Mixed manufacturing Age, gross profit, EPS and total assets. EAD practices were positively related with total assets, EPS and gross profit of the company but
Karim (2018) age of the firm is negatively related with EAD.
Chen et al. (2018) China Mixed Profitability and social externalities. Mandatory CSR disclosure decreases firm’s profitability (negative) and social externalities
(positive impact).
Welbeck, Owusu, Bekoe, Ghana Mixed Industry type, profitability, foreign ownership, age, firm size, Although environmental sensitive firm were disclosing more information but everywhere GRI
and Kusi (2017) auditor and GRI guidelines influencing ED. Firms’ ED practices were positively influenced by industry type, auditor
type, age and firm size of the firm.
Bhuiyan, Hossain, and Bangladesh Mixed manufacturing Total assets, firm age, profitability and EPS. Profitability, total assets and EPS had significant relationship with environmental accounting
Akther (2017) disclosure in the annual report but firm age had not such relation.
Akrout and Othman MENA countries Mixed Ownership structure. Negative relation between EADs and family ownership. However, presence of government
(2016) ownership tends to expand the practice of corporate environmental reporting.
D'Amico, Coluccia, Italy Mixed Firm size, age, business industry, company ownership, Environmental information disclosure was very low but larger and public companies were
Fontana, and Solimene economic performance, financial situation, public disclosing more. Legislation had positive but minority shareholders, lager audit and foreign listed
(2016) shareholders, audit & legislation. had negative relation with environmental disclosures.
Hummel and Schlick European Mixed Firm size, financial performance, financial leverage, Tobins Q, High sustainability performer chosen high quality sustainability disclosure and vice-versa.
(2016) countries country and industry type.
Wong et al. (2016) UK & USA Mixed Profitability, company size, liquidity, leverage, share %, Size, profitability, liquidity and country were related for providing sustainable assurance.
country and year.
Akanno, Che, Radda, and Nigeria Mixed Company size, industry type. CSEDs were affected by the size and industry type. CSED variations were found in the different
Uzodinma (2015) industry.
Fontana, D'Amico, Italy Mixed Business industry, legislation environmental performance, Legislation had positive and significant effect on voluntary ED. The positive relationship of firm
Coluccia, and Solimene firm size and public shareholders. size, business sensitivity and government ownership with ED indexes. Bigger and polluted firms
(2015) were providing more environmental information.
Muttakin, Khan, and Bangladesh Non-financial Firm size, profitability, board gender diversity, CEO duality, Board independence, CEO duality, firm size, profitability and foreign directors had positive and
Subramaniam (2015) institutions board independence, foreign directors and family ownership. board gender & family ownership had negative relationship.
Burgwal and Vieira Netherlands Mixed Firm size, profitability and industry membership (type). Firm size and industry membership were positively associated with ED which was statistically
(2014) significant but profitability was not statistically significant.
Akrout and Othman Arab MENA Mixed Business culture, leverage profitability, ownership type, firm Negative and significant relationship between ED and family ownership but ED depends on
(2013) countries size and internet penetration. company size and performance.

2023 | International Journal of Financial, Accounting, and Management/ Vol 5 No 2, 195-213

199
A. Khan, Muttakin, and Bangladesh Manufacturing Firm size, media and ownership structure Firm size, media, public and foreign ownership had positive and managerial ownership had
Siddiqui (2013) negative relationship with environmental disclosure.
Juhmani (2013) Bahrain Mixed Age, audit size, profitability, firm size, financial leverage. Financial leverage and size of the audit firm are significantly related with social and environmental
informationdisclosure.
Makori and Jagongo India Mixed Return on capital employed, company size, dividend per share, Environmental information was positively associated with large firm, dividend per share and net
(2013) net profit margin and earnings per share. profit margin but negatively with return on capital employed and EPS.
Ullah, Yakub, Hossain, Bangladesh Mixed Age, profitability and size (Total assets, gross revenue, number Company size (assets) had influenced on the volume of environmental disclosure.
Ullah, and Musharof of projects and no. of employees).
(2013)
Uwuigbe and Ajibolade Nigeria Mixed Audit size, board size, CEO duality and non-executive CEO duality negatively but audit size, board size and independent directors had significant positive
(2013) directors. relationship with the CSE disclosure.
Iqbal, Sutrisno, Assih, Indonesia Mixed ISO / GRI & Tobin’s Q. Environmental accounting implementation and environmental performance were directly affected
and Rosidi (2013) on company value but no effect through ED.
Muttanachai and Stanton Thailand Mixed Ownership, size of company, profitability, type of industry, Environmental disclosures (ED) and size of the company were positively related and industry type
(2012) country origin of the company. has an effect on the environmental disclosure.
Saha and Akter (2012) Bangladesh Mixed manufacturing Profitability. Environmental reporting and corporate profitability were positively related.
Joshi, Suwaidan, and India Mixed Age, size, profitability, industry type, foreign operation, ED was positively association with size and industry type. However, heavy polluted firms lean
Kumar (2011) ownership and financial leverage. towards disclose the higher information where the disclosure is not affected by profitability and
financial leverage.
Buniamin et al. (2011) Malaysia Mixed Board size, board independence, CEO duality, financial Environmental reporting disclosure was low and these disclosures were significantly associated
expertise, frequency of board meeting and management with board size and management ownership.
ownership.
Sun, Salama, Hussainey, UK Mixed Total accruals, board size, firm size, profitability, audit, Management earnings had no significant association with ED but some corporate governance
and Habbash (2010) earnings management and financial leverage. attributes effect on environmental reporting and management earnings.
Abdul Rahman, Yusoff, Thailand, Malaysia & Mixed and comparative Financial performance. Company performance was not the main indicator of the detailed or superficial environmental
and Wan Mohamed Singapore disclosure.
(2009)
Damak-Ayadi (2009) France Mixed Size, financial performance, stakeholders’ salience, industry’s Mandatory SED had a positive relationship with size and industry’s reputation. Voluntary SED
reputation, and NRE application. was influenced by the bad industry’s reputation and social & environmental reporting law.
Brammer and Pavelin UK Mixed Business nature, environmental effect, profitability, leverage, The quality of disclosure was depended on firm’s size and the nature of business but not by the
(2008) firm size, company ownership, and board members. media exposure.
Smith, Yahya, and Malaysia Mixed Industry membership, profitability, liquidity, leverage, share Except ROA, negative relationship of environmental disclosures with financial performance of
Marzuki Amiruddin price movement, company size and political cost proxies. Malaysian companies were found.
(2007)
Barako (2007) Kenya Mixed Non-ex. directors, ownership structure, audit committee, Voluntary disclosures were influenced by the company characteristics, corporate governance
profitability, leverage, size, audit firm, liquidity and industry attributes, and ownership structure.
type.
Alsaeed (2006) Saudi Arabia Mixed Firm size, industry size, age, financial performance, audit size, Firm size had positive and all others determinants had no relation with environmental disclosures.
leverage and ownership dispersion.
Cormier, Magnan, and Continental Europe Mixed and comparative Firm size, fixed assets, age, ownership, routine and risk. Size, ownership, age, risk, fixed assets were the determinants of ED and ED was driven by
Van Velthoven (2005) and Germany complementary forces.
Rahaman, Lawrence, and Ghana Mixed Institutional pressure from world bank. World bank regulatory requirements pressure was positively influenced on CSR disclosure.
Roper (2004)
Ahmad, Hassan, and Malaysia Mixed Company size, profitability, tax rate, financial leverage, Financial leverage and Big 5 Audit firm were negatively associated with providing voluntary
Mohammad (2003) industry membership and big 5 audit firm. environmental disclosures.

2023 | International Journal of Financial, Accounting, and Management/ Vol 5 No 2, 195-213

200
Table 2. Checklist of Determinants of EADs
Authors/ Researchers

Environmental performance

Environmental concern

Profitability / financial

Regulatory guideline
Ownership & type
Board size/type

Company size

Total accruals
Industry type
CAPEX/PPE

Efficiency &

Political cost

performance
Productivity

Tobin’s Q
Audit size

Leverage

Liquidity
ISO/GRI

Pressure

Others
Age
Ali et al. (2022) √ √
Mondal (2021) √
Mohammad and Wasiuzzaman (2021) √ √ √ √ √
Fuadah et al. (2021) √ √
Ismail et al. (2021) √ √
Geerts et al. (2021) √ √ √ √
Khandelwal and Chaturvedi (2021) √ √
Solikhah et al. (2021) √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Bhatia and Makkar (2020) √ √ √ √ √
Feng and Gao (2020) √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Jackson et al. (2020) √ √ √ √
Maama (2021) √ √ √
Nguyen (2020) √ √ √ √
Utomo et al. (2020) √ √ √ √
Zamir et al. (2022) √ √ √ √ √
Baalouch et al. (2019) √ √ √
Hamrouni et al. (2020) √ √ √ √ √
I. Khan et al. (2019) √ √ √ √ √ √
Matuszak et al. (2019) √ √ √ √ √
Sekhon and Kathuria (2020) √ √ √ √ √
Broadstock et al. (2018) √ √ √ √
Baldini et al. (2018) √ √ √ √
Dal Maso et al. (2018)
Gong and Ho (2018)

2023 | International Journal of Financial, Accounting, and Management/ Vol 5 No 2, 195-213

201
 Li et al. (2018) √ √ √ √ √ √
Mehedy et al. (2018) √ √ √
Chen et al. (2018) √ √
Bhuiyan et al. (2017) √ √ √
Welbeck et al. (2017) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
D'Amico et al. (2016) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Hummel and Schlick (2016) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Wong et al. (2016) √ √ √ √ √
Akrout and Othman (2016) √
Akanno et al. (2015) √ √
Fontana et al. (2015) √ √ √ √ √ √
Muttakin et al. (2015) √ √ √ √
Burgwal and Vieira (2014) √ √ √
Uwuigbe and Ajibolade (2013) √ √ √
Akrout and Othman (2013) √ √ √ √ √
Iqbal et al. (2013) √ √
Juhmani (2013) √ √ √ √ √
A. Khan et al. (2013) √ √ √
Makori and Jagongo (2013) √ √
Ullah et al. (2013) √ √ √ √
Muttanachai and Stanton (2012) √ √ √ √ √
Saha and Akter (2012) √ √
Joshi et al. (2011) √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Buniamin et al. (2011) √ √ √ √ √
Sun et al. (2010) √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Abdul Rahman et al. (2009) √
Damak-Ayadi (2009) √ √ √
Brammer and Pavelin (2008) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Smith et al. (2007) √ √ √ √ √ √
Barako (2007) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Alsaeed (2006)
Cormier et al. (2005) √ √ √ √ √
Rahaman et al. (2004) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

2023 | International Journal of Financial, Accounting, and Management/ Vol 5 No 2, 195-213

202
Ahmad et al. (2003) √ √ √ √ √ √
Total score 11 9 11 3 42 1 6 7 15 4 16 9 16 3 35 4 7 1 4 43

2023 | International Journal of Financial, Accounting, and Management/ Vol 5 No 2, 195-213

203
From a systematic literature review, we have drawn the following figures.

Country based study articles

14 12
Number of article

12 10
10 8
8 7
6 5 5
4 4 4
4 3
2 2 2 2 2 2
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0

Name of the country

Figure 1. Number of articles with studied country

Environmental accounting disclosure determinants in number

12 10 10
9 9
No. of Articles

10
8 6
5
6 4 4
3 3 3
4 2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2
0

Year

Figure 2. EADs in number

Environmental accounting disclosure determinants found in the

number of publications

50
No of Articles

40
30 43 43
36
20
10 11 9 11 3 1 6 7 16 4 16 8 16 3 4 7 1 4
0

Determinants/ Factors

Figure 3. Studies on EADs

2023 | International Journal of Financial, Accounting, and Management/ Vol 5 No 2, 195-213

204
 Database/ source of articles
25 23

20
15
15 13 13
9
10
3 4
5
1
0
AAA Elsevier Emerald Google MDPI Springer Taylor and Wiley Online
Science Direct Scholar & Francis Library
others

Figure 4. Database where articles have been downloaded

2.1. Conceptual Framework

A good theoretical framework assists in setting and testing the hypothesized relationships between
variables. The following theoretical framework was structured using literature-based EADs (Figure 3).
This finding would help accomplish further studies using the following framework and all identified
determinants. The framework can also be formulated by considering only the most commonly used
financial and non-financial determinants.

2023 | International Journal of Financial, Accounting, and Management/ Vol 5 No 2, 195-213

205
 Company Size

Profitability
Leverage
Ownership

Industry types

Age

Board Size

Audit Size

Liquidity
Environmental Accounting
Environmental concern Disclosure Practice
Regulatory guideline

Environmental performance

ISO/ GRI
Pressure

Tobin’s Q
CAPEX
Political cost

Accruals
Efficiency & productivity
Figure 5. Conceptual framework-1 (Developed by the authors)

Companies should understand EADs to develop, achieve, and advance a sustainable competitive
advantage to face green challenges (Mondal, 2021; Suileek & Alshurafat, 2022). The disclosure
endorses voluntary environmental regulations to help uplift sustainable business development. This
requires enhancing environmental awareness (Xiang, Liu, Yang, & Zhao, 2020) that helps the company
increase goodwill, recognition, and credibility (Boura, Tsouknidis, & Lioukas, 2020). Environmental
accounting disclosure is an unavoidable rudimentary step in this process, necessitating an extended
conceptual framework with sustainable development. Moreover, EADs are the elements of the annual
report disclosed in financial statements. Some determinants are directly included in the annual report,
whereas others are disclosed indirectly. Therefore, the proposed alternative relationship can be
expressed in the structural equation model (SEM) as follows:

2023 | International Journal of Financial, Accounting, and Management/ Vol 5 No 2, 195-213

206
 Financial Determinants:
Company size
Profitability
Leverage
Liquidity
Tobi’s Q
CAPEX
Political cost
Accruals
Efficiency and productivity

Environmental
accounting disclosure Sustainable
Non-financial determinants: practices development
Ownership
Industry type
Age
Board size
Audit size

Others:
Environmental concern
Regulatory guideline
Environmental performance
Iso/GRI
Pressure
Others

Figure 5. Conceptual Framework-2 (Developed by the authors)

5. Conclusion
EADs are mostly determined by applying environmental accounting and a country's unique contextual
considerations. Companies should meet certain criteria to be listed in the SEC and act according to the
SEC's wishes and the needs of other authorities. In contrast, there is no hard and fast rule for disclosing
environmental accounting disclosures for sustainability in underdeveloped countries (Rosadi & Barus,
2022). Complying with GRI guidelines and obtaining ISO certification is not mandatory for companies.
However, companies should have such certification and practice all national and international rules and
regulations voluntarily to be reputed, recognized, and internationally accepted. Figure 2 shows that
studies on EADs are increasing globally (Sisay and Liku, 2022). The narrative analysis identified most
of the variables and their relationships with social and environmental disclosure. The variables showed
negative, positive, or no relations depending on the variation of country, nature, sector, culture,
sensitivity, and biodiversity impact. Each industry is unique and has distinguishing features. This means
that comparability techniques and procedures should be separated and unique for each industry
according to their identity. However, Table 1 shows that most studies were based on mixed companies.
In this regard, a future study could be conducted within this sector using the recommended framework.
Most studies have also focused on developing countries such as the UK, India, the USA, Malaysia,
Indonesia, China, and Pakistan. Only a few studies have been conducted in developing countries, such
as Bangladesh, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 3 shows that some determinants are more commonly used than others are. Company size,
profitability or financial performance, leverage, ownership type, industry type, age, board size, audit
size, liquidity, environmental concern, and regulatory guidelines have positive, negative, or no
relationships with EADs. Environmental performance, various pressures, ISO/GRI guidelines, and
Tobin’s Q were used as the influential determinants of EADs. However, different classifications of
ownership and board size, media, listed, environmental performance, market value, sensitivity,
investment, internet, business activity, culture, and share price volatility also influence EAD. Since not
all probable variables have been used in a single framework, future studies could utilize the
2023 | International Journal of Financial, Accounting, and Management/ Vol 5 No 2, 195-213
207
determinants mostly applied to developing countries, such as Bangladesh. These findings could apply
to all listed or only manufacturing companies or a specific industry, such as textile companies in
Bangladesh. EADs may help avoid penalties and fines, fulfill commitment to stakeholders, and increase
transparency and reliability. Furthermore, EADs can create a positive image among fund providers,
buyers, and regulators. This is because sustainable development depends on sound economic, social,
and environmental development. Indonesia is not economically sound as an underdeveloped or
developing country. Therefore, companies should voluntarily implement and establish environmental
accounting standards.

5.1. Implications
This study contributes to accounting insight by supporting the highly influential factors of
environmental disclosure. In the future, the number of practical functional determinants will be revealed
after testing the suggested framework. The results show that most studies are based on publicly traded
corporations. Therefore, future studies should focus on non-listed companies that have available annual
reports. This is the first literature review to synthesize a conceptual framework by distinguishing
between the dependent and independent variables. These findings may help researchers and academics
to address various environmental accounting disclosure determinants. Furthermore, regulators could
evaluate the suggested framework nationally and worldwide in emerging and developed nations for
particular and mixed listed and non-listed companies' significant determinants. This would help to build
a new and obligatory standard based on new and mandatory standards. The findings may also assist
managers and practitioners in providing environmental disclosures for sustainable development on a
lesser scale, while expanding company sustainability with competence. The two conceptual frameworks
developed in this study might also help managers determine environmental determinant priorities faster
and with less scattered effort. Additionally, practitioners should use firework principles to minimize the
future difficulties and pressures associated with guaranteeing sustainable growth.

5.2. Limitations and Future Directions

This study has several limitations, such as covering only English-language published literature from
2001 to 2023. Future studies could choose all language-published articles, books, book chapters,
industry reports, trade magazines, and conference proceedings from the start of the literature review to
obtain more significant insights. Furthermore, the study focused only on the determinants mostly
connected to financial accounts, with most papers coming from poor nations. This has increased the
chances of missing social and environmental disclosure aspects in recent reviews. Gaps or links were
also established in the conceptual frameworks that may be worthy of further investigation. Previous
studies have highlighted the relationship between a few variables and environmental accounting
disclosure. By contrast, this study proposed a number of determinants that would guide future studies
by specifying other determinants with a new testable framework. Additionally, future studies should
focus on inferential statistics to determine the accuracy, reliability, and authenticity of disclosure to a
specific sector.

References
Abdul Rahman, S. A., Yusoff, R., & Wan Mohamed, W. N. (2009). Environmental disclosure and
financial performance: An empirical study of Malaysia, Thailand, and Singapore. Social and
Environmental Accountability Journal, 29(2).
Afrin, S., Sehreen, F., Polas, M. R. H., & Sharin, R. (2020). Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
practices of financial institution in Bangladesh: the case of United Commercial Bank. Journal
of Sustainable Tourism and Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 69-82.
Ahmad, Z., Hassan, S., & Mohammad, J. (2003). Determinants of Environmental Reporting in
Malaysia. International Journal of Business Studies, 11(1).
Akanno, S. N., Che, F., Radda, A., & Uzodinma, I. (2015). Patterns of corporate social and
environmental disclosure in Nigeria. International Journal of Business and Finance
Management Research, 3(8), 71-82.
Akrout, M. M., & Othman, H. B. (2013). A study of the determinants of corporate environmental
disclosure in MENA emerging markets. Journal of Reviews on Global economics, 2, 46.

2023 | International Journal of Financial, Accounting, and Management/ Vol 5 No 2, 195-213

208
Akrout, M. M., & Othman, H. B. (2016). Ownership structure and environmental disclosure in Mena
emerging countries. Corporate Ownership & Control, 13(4), 381-388.
Ali, W., Frynas, J. G., & Mahmood, Z. (2017). Determinants of corporate social responsibility (CSR)
disclosure in developed and developing countries: A literature review. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 24(4), 273-294.
Ali, W., Wilson, J., & Husnain, M. (2022). Determinants/motivations of corporate social responsibility
disclosure in developing economies: A survey of the extant literature. Sustainability, 14(6),
3474.
Alsaeed, K. (2006). The association between firm‐specific characteristics and disclosure: The case of
Saudi Arabia. Managerial auditing journal.
Annumeet, & Singh, S. (2017). Corporate Environmental Disclosure Practices and Its Association with
Corporate Value: A Review. International Journal of Research in Management, Economics
and Commerce, 7(10), 38-44.
Anoke, A. F., Onu, A. N., & Agagbo, O. C. (2022). Managerial Competencies and Growth of Small
and Medium Enterprise (SMEs) in Abuja Metropolis, Nigeria. International Journal of
Financial, Accounting, and Management, 4(3), 255-268.
Baalouch, F., Ayadi, S. D., & Hussainey, K. (2019). A study of the determinants of environmental
disclosure quality: evidence from French listed companies. Journal of Management and
Governance, 23, 939-971.
Baldini, M., Maso, L. D., Liberatore, G., Mazzi, F., & Terzani, S. (2018). Role of country-and firm-
level determinants in environmental, social, and governance disclosure. Journal of Business
Ethics, 150, 79-98.
Barako, D. G. (2007). Determinants of voluntary disclosures in Kenyan companies annual reports.
African journal of business management, 1(5).
Bhatia, A., & Makkar, B. (2020). Stage of development of a country and CSR disclosure–the latent
driving forces. International Journal of Law and Management, 62(5), 467-493.
Bhuiyan, M. N. U., Hossain, S., & Akther, F. (2017). Environmental reporting practices and it's
relationship with corporate characteristics: An evidence from manufacturing companies listed
in Dhaka Stock exchange. The Cost and Management: The Journal of the Institute of Cost and
Management Accountants of Bangladesh, 45(1), 3-11.
Boura, M., Tsouknidis, D. A., & Lioukas, S. (2020). The role of pro‐social orientation and national
context in corporate environmental disclosure. European Management Review, 17(4), 1027-
1040.
Brammer, S., & Pavelin, S. (2008). Factors influencing the quality of corporate environmental
disclosure. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(2), 120-136.
Broadstock, D. C., Collins, A., Hunt, L. C., & Vergos, K. (2018). Voluntary disclosure, greenhouse gas
emissions and business performance: Assessing the first decade of reporting. The British
accounting review, 50(1), 48-59.
Buniamin, S., Alrazi, B., Johari, N. H., & Rahman, N. R. A. (2011). Corporate governance practices
and environmental reporting of companies in Malaysia: Finding possibilities of double thumbs
up. Jurnal Pengurusan, 32(2011), 55-71.
Burgwal, D. v. d., & Vieira, R. J. O. (2014). Environmental disclosure determinants in Dutch listed
companies. Revista Contabilidade & Finanças, 25, 60-78.
Cacciotti, G., & Hayton, J. C. (2015). Fear and entrepreneurship: A review and research agenda.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(2), 165-190.
Chen, Y.-C., Hung, M., & Wang, Y. (2018). The effect of mandatory CSR disclosure on firm
profitability and social externalities: Evidence from China. Journal of accounting and
economics, 65(1), 169-190.
Christensen, D. M. (2016). Corporate accountability reporting and high-profile misconduct. The
accounting review, 91(2), 377-399.
Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D., & Vasvari, F. P. (2008). Revisiting the relation between
environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Accounting,
organizations and society, 33(4-5), 303-327.

2023 | International Journal of Financial, Accounting, and Management/ Vol 5 No 2, 195-213

209
Cormier, D., Magnan, M., & Van Velthoven, B. (2005). Environmental disclosure quality in large
German companies: economic incentives, public pressures or institutional conditions?
European Accounting Review, 14(1), 3-39.
D'Amico, E., Coluccia, D., Fontana, S., & Solimene, S. (2016). Factors influencing corporate
environmental disclosure. Business Strategy and the Environment, 25(3), 178-192.
Dal Maso, L., Mazzi, F., Soscia, M., & Terzani, S. (2018). The moderating role of stakeholder
management and societal characteristics in the relationship between corporate environmental
and financial performance. Journal of environmental management, 218, 322-332.
Damak-Ayadi, S. (2009). Some determinants of social and environmental disclosures in annual reports
by French firms. Accounting and management information systems, 8(3), 324-351.
Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., Buchanan, D., & Bryman, A. (2009). The Sage handbook of organizational
research methods. Reference and Research Book News, 24(3), 776.
El Fallahi, F., Ibenrissoul, A., & Adil, E. (2022). Does Innovation Play a Role in the Relationship
Between Corporate Social and Financial Performance? A Systematic Literature Review.
International Journal of Financial, Accounting, and Management, 4(3), 315-334.
Feng, S., & Gao, L. S. (2020). The verbal tone in mandatory environmental disclosures: evidence from
changes in disclosures following SEC guidance. Social and Environmental Accountability
Journal, 40(2), 116-139.
Fifka, M. S. (2013). Corporate responsibility reporting and its determinants in comparative perspective–
a review of the empirical literature and a meta‐analysis. Business Strategy and the Environment,
22(1), 1-35.
Fontana, S., D'Amico, E., Coluccia, D., & Solimene, S. (2015). Does environmental performance affect
companies’ environmental disclosure? Measuring Business Excellence, 19(3), 42-57.
Fortanier, F., Kolk, A., & Pinkse, J. (2011). Harmonization in CSR reporting: MNEs and global CSR
standards. Management international review, 51, 665-696.
Fuadah, L. L., Saftiana, Y., Kalsum, U., & Arisman, A. (2021). Factors Influencing Environmental
Disclosure: A Case Study of Manufacturing Companies in Indonesia. Factors Influencing
Environmental Disclosure: A Case Study of Manufacturing Companies in Indonesia, 8(9), 1-
11.
Geerts, M., Dooms, M., & Stas, L. (2021). Determinants of sustainability reporting in the present
institutional context: The case of port managing bodies. Sustainability, 13(6), 3148.
Gong, Y., & Ho, K.-C. (2018). Does corporate social responsibility matter for corporate stability?
Evidence from China. Quality & quantity, 52, 2291-2319.
Gray, R., Javad, M., Power, D. M., & Sinclair, C. D. (2001). Social and environmental disclosure and
corporate characteristics: A research note and extension. Journal of business finance &
accounting, 28(3‐4), 327-356.
Gumbo, L., Margaret, M., & Chagwesha, M. (2022). Personal Financial Management Skills Of
University Students and Their Financial Experiences During The Covid-19 Pandemic.
International Journal of Financial, Accounting, and Management, 4(2), 129-143.
Hamrouni, A., Uyar, A., & Boussaada, R. (2020). Are corporate social responsibility disclosures
relevant for lenders? Empirical evidence from France. Management decision, 58(2), 267-279.
Hawlader, M. R., Rana, M. M., Kalam, A., & Polas, M. R. H. (2021). Consideration of workers’ opinion
in the decision-making process in the RMG Sector: Evidence from Bangladesh. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism and Entrepreneurship, 2(4), 267-282.
Hummel, K., & Schlick, C. (2016). The relationship between sustainability performance and
sustainability disclosure–Reconciling voluntary disclosure theory and legitimacy theory.
Journal of accounting and public policy, 35(5), 455-476.
Iqbal, M., Sutrisno, T., Assih, P., & Rosidi, R. (2013). Effect of environmental accounting
implementation and environmental performance and environmental information disclosure as
mediation on company value. International Journal of Business and Management Invention,
2(10), 55-67.
Isaifan, R. J., & Kooli, C. (2022). Highlights on the unavoidable impact of climate change on public
health policy (Vol. 2022, pp. 6): HBKU Press Qatar.

2023 | International Journal of Financial, Accounting, and Management/ Vol 5 No 2, 195-213

210
Ismail, H., Saleem, M. A., Zahra, S., Tufail, M. S., & Ali, R. A. (2021). Application of global reporting
initiative (GRI) principles for measuring quality of corporate social responsibility (CSR)
disclosure: Evidence from Pakistan. Sustainability, 13(20), 11409.
Jackson, G., Bartosch, J., Avetisyan, E., Kinderman, D., & Knudsen, J. S. (2020). Mandatory non-
financial disclosure and its influence on CSR: An international comparison. Journal of Business
Ethics, 162, 323-342.
Joshi, P. L., Suwaidan, M. S., & Kumar, R. (2011). Determinants of environmental disclosures by
Indian industrial listed companies: empirical Study. International Journal of Accounting and
Finance, 3(2), 109-130.
Juhmani, O. I. (2013). Ownership structure and corporate voluntary disclosure: Evidence from Bahrain.
International Journal of Accounting and Financial Reporting, 3(2), 133.
Kamal, Y., & Deegan, C. (2013). Corporate social and environment‐related governance disclosure
practices in the textile and garment industry: Evidence from a developing country. Australian
Accounting Review, 23(2), 117-134.
Khan, A., Muttakin, M. B., & Siddiqui, J. (2013). Corporate governance and corporate social
responsibility disclosures: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Business Ethics,
114, 207-223.
Khan, I., Khan, I., & Senturk, I. (2019). Board diversity and quality of CSR disclosure: evidence from
Pakistan. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society.
Khandelwal, A., & Chaturvedi, A. (2021). Environmental Accounting Disclosures and Financial
Performance in India. Recent Advances in Fields of Accounting, Finance and Management.
Kooli, C., lock Son, M., & Beloufa, I. (2022). Business ethics in the era of COVID 19: How to protect
jobs and employment rights through innovation. Avicenna, 2022(2), 7.
Kuncara, W. A. (2022). The influence of Whistleblowing System and internal control on fraud
prevention at PT Pos Indonesia (Persero) Bandung City. International Journal of Financial,
Accounting, and Management, 4(2), 101-113.
Li, Y., Gong, M., Zhang, X.-Y., & Koh, L. (2018). The impact of environmental, social, and governance
disclosure on firm value: The role of CEO power. The British accounting review, 50(1), 60-75.
Maama, H. (2021). Institutional environment and environmental, social and governance accounting
among banks in West Africa. Meditari Accountancy Research, 29(6), 1314-1336.
Makori, D. M., & Jagongo, A. (2013). Environmental accounting and firm profitability: An empirical
analysis of selected firms listed in Bombay stock exchange, India. International Journal of
Humanities and Social Science, 3(18), 248-256.
Matuszak, Ł., Różańska, E., & Macuda, M. (2019). The impact of corporate governance characteristics
on banks’ corporate social responsibility disclosure: Evidence from Poland. Journal of
Accounting in Emerging Economies.
Mehedy, S. R., Sajib, H. M., & Karim, R. (2018). Environmental reporting practices of listed companies
in Bangladesh. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and
Management Sciences, 8(3), 178-193.
Mohammad, W. M. W., & Wasiuzzaman, S. (2021). Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)
disclosure, competitive advantage and performance of firms in Malaysia. Cleaner
Environmental Systems, 2, 100015.
Mondal, M. S. A. (2021). Efficiency and Productivity Measurement for Sustainability of Selected
Textile Companies in Bangladesh: An Application of Data Envelopment Analysis.
Monteiro, A., Cepêda, C., & Silva, A. (2022). EU Non-Financial Reporting Research. International
Journal of Financial, Accounting, and Management, 4(3), 335-348.
Muttakin, M. B., Khan, A., & Subramaniam, N. (2015). Firm characteristics, board diversity and
corporate social responsibility: evidence from Bangladesh. Pacific Accounting Review.
Muttanachai, S., & Stanton, P. (2012). Determinants of environmental disclosure in Corporate Annual
Reports. International Journal of Accounting and Financial Reporting, 2(1), 99-115.
Nguyen, T. D. (2020). Factors influencing environmental accounting information disclosure of listed
enterprises on Vietnamese stock markets. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and
Business, 7(11), 877-883.

2023 | International Journal of Financial, Accounting, and Management/ Vol 5 No 2, 195-213

211
Nijmeijer, K. J., Fabbricotti, I. N., & Huijsman, R. (2014). Making franchising work: A framework
based on a systematic review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(1), 62-83.
O’Dwyer, B. (2011). The case of sustainability assurance: Constructing a new assurance service.
Contemporary Accounting Research, 28(4), 1230-1266.
Polas, M. R. H., Tabash, M. I., Jahanshahi, A. A., & Schmitt, V. G. H. (2022). Ethical decision-making
practices in SMEs: the role of risk acceptance and confidence level. International Journal of
Business Governance and Ethics, 16(4), 437-462.
Qian, W., Tilt, C., & Belal, A. (2021). Social and environmental accounting in developing countries:
Contextual challenges and insights. Accounting, auditing & accountability journal, 34(5),
1021-1050.
Qiu, Y., Shaukat, A., & Tharyan, R. (2016). Environmental and social disclosures: Link with corporate
financial performance. The British accounting review, 48(1), 102-116.
Rahaman, A. S., Lawrence, S., & Roper, J. (2004). Social and environmental reporting at the VRA:
institutionalised legitimacy or legitimation crisis? Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 15(1),
35-56.
Rosadi, Y. M. R., & Barus, I. S. L. (2022). The Effect of Time Budget Pressure and Auditor’s
Competency on Audit Quality. International Journal of Financial, Accounting, and
Management, 4(3), 241-254.
Saha, A. K., & Akter, S. (2012). Relationship between environmental reporting in corporate annual
reports & corporate profitability in Bangladesh. Independent Business Review, 5(2), 91-111.
Sekhon, A. K., & Kathuria, L. M. (2020). Analyzing the impact of corporate social responsibility on
corporate financial performance: evidence from top Indian firms. Corporate Governance: The
International Journal of Business in Society, 20(1), 143-157.
Selim, S. (2018). Environmental compliance opportunities in the Bangladeshi ready made garments
industry: Lessons from the green high achievers. Economic Dialogue on Green Growth Project,
Adam Smith International, Dhaka.” Shahpar Selim, 7.
Seneviratne, S. C., & Gunawardane, S. (2022). Modernization practices and Operating Models: An
Empirical Study on a Retail Bank in Sri Lanka. International Journal of Financial, Accounting,
and Management, 4(2), 183-198.
Shil, N. C., & Iqbal, M. (2005). Environmental disclosure–a Bangladesh perspective.
Sikder, S., Rana, M. M., & Polas, M. R. H. (2021). Service Quality Dimensions (SERVQUAL) and
Customer Satisfaction towards Motor Ride-Sharing Services: Evidence from Bangladesh.
Annals of Management and Organization Research, 3(2), 97-113.
Sisay, A., & Liku, M. (2022). Supply Chain Management Practice and Its Impact on Performance of
Humanitarian Relief Organization in Case of Gedeo Zone. International Journal of Financial,
Accounting, and Management, 4(3), 269-284.
Smith, M., Yahya, K., & Marzuki Amiruddin, A. (2007). Environmental disclosure and performance
reporting in Malaysia. Asian Review of Accounting, 15(2), 185-199.
Solikhah, B., Puteri, A. A., Sarwono, E., Ulupui, I., & Al-Faryan, M. A. S. (2021). Improving
Understanding on Determinant of Environmental Disclosure and Moderating Effect of
Corporate Governance. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 20(2).
Steinisch, M., Yusuf, R., Li, J., Rahman, O., Ashraf, H. M., Strümpell, C., . . . Loerbroks, A. (2013).
Work stress: Its components and its association with self-reported health outcomes in a garment
factory in Bangladesh—Findings from a cross-sectional study. Health & place, 24, 123-130.
Stumbitz, B., Lewis, S., & Rouse, J. (2018). Maternity management in SMEs: A transdisciplinary
review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(2), 500-522.
Suileek, H. A., & Alshurafat, H. (2022). The determinants of environmental accounting disclosure: a
review of the literature. Explore Business, Technology Opportunities and Challenges After the
Covid-19 Pandemic, 463-477.
Sun, N., Salama, A., Hussainey, K., & Habbash, M. (2010). Corporate environmental disclosure,
corporate governance and earnings management. Managerial auditing journal, 25(7), 679-700.
Ullah, M. H. (2014). Environmental disclosure practices in annual report of the listed textile industries
in Bangladesh. Global Journal of Management And Business Research, 14(D1), 87-98.

2023 | International Journal of Financial, Accounting, and Management/ Vol 5 No 2, 195-213

212
Ullah, M. H., Yakub, K., Hossain, M., Ullah, H., & Musharof, K. (2013). Environmental reporting
practices in annual report of selected listed companies in Bangladesh. Research Journal of
finance and accounting, 4(7), 45-58.
Utomo, M. N., Rahayu, S., Kaujan, K., & Irwandi, S. A. (2020). Environmental performance,
environmental disclosure, and firm value: empirical study of non-financial companies at
Indonesia Stock Exchange. Green Finance, 2(1), 100-113.
Uwuigbe, U., & Ajibolade, S. (2013). Effects of corporate governance on corporate social and
environmental disclosure among listed firms in Nigeria. European Journal of Business and
Social Sciences, 2(5), 76-92.
Welbeck, E. E., Owusu, G. M. Y., Bekoe, R. A., & Kusi, J. A. (2017). Determinants of environmental
disclosures of listed firms in Ghana. International journal of corporate social responsibility,
2(1), 1-12.
Wong, J., Wong, N., Li, W. Y., & Chen, L. (2016). Sustainability assurance: an emerging market for
the accounting profession. Pacific Accounting Review, 28(3), 238-259.
Xiang, X., Liu, C., Yang, M., & Zhao, X. (2020). Confession or justification: The effects of
environmental disclosure on corporate green innovation in China. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(6), 2735-2750.
Zahoor, N., Al‐Tabbaa, O., Khan, Z., & Wood, G. (2020). Collaboration and internationalization of
SMEs: Insights and recommendations from a systematic review. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 22(4), 427-456.
Zamir, F., Shailer, G., & Saeed, A. (2022). Do corporate social responsibility disclosures influence
investment efficiency in the emerging markets of Asia? International Journal of Managerial
Finance, 18(1), 28-48.

2023 | International Journal of Financial, Accounting, and Management/ Vol 5 No 2, 195-213

213