Page 145
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Firm Size and Environmental Disclosure Among Firmlisted on the
Nairobi Securities Exchange
Kenneth Cornelis Ouma; Dr. Fred Gichana Atandi
School of Business and Economics, Kibabii University, Kenya
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2026.150600014
Received: 17 June 2026; Accepted: 22 June 2026; Published: 03 July 2026
ABSTRACT
This study examined the relationship between firm size and environmental disclosure among firms listed on the
Nairobi Securities Exchange (NSE). Environmental disclosure has become an important aspect of corporate
accountability due to increasing global concerns regarding environmental sustainability. However,
environmental reporting among Kenyan firms remains largely voluntary because of limited regulatory
frameworks and absence of mandatory disclosure standards. The study adopted an explanatory research design
and utilized secondary data collected from annual reports of firms listed on the NSE for the period 2018–2022.
Content analysis was employed to extract environmental disclosure information, while descriptive and
inferential statistics were used to analyze the data. Environmental disclosure was measured using an
environmental disclosure index developed from a disclosure checklist. Firm size was measured using the
logarithm of total annual sales turnover. Regression analysis findings revealed that firm size had a positive and
significant relationship with environmental disclosure (β = 0.147, p = 0.010). Pearson correlation results also
confirmed a significant association between firm size and environmental disclosure (r = 0.217, p = 0.001). The
study concludes that larger firms are more likely to disclose environmental information than smaller firms due
to increased public visibility and stakeholder pressure. The study recommends the establishment of mandatory
environmental disclosure guidelines to improve transparency and sustainability reporting among listed firms in
Kenya.
Keywords: Firm Size., Environmental Disclosure., Sustainability Reporting, Stakeholder Theory, Nairobi
Securities Exchange, Kenya.
INTRODUCTION
Environmental disclosure has emerged as a significant issue in corporate reporting due to growing public concern
over environmental degradation and sustainability. Organizations are increasingly expected to demonstrate
environmental responsibility by reporting their environmental activities, policies, and impacts in annual reports.
Environmental disclosure enhances transparency, accountability, and stakeholder confidence.
Globally, firms have embraced environmental disclosure as part of corporate social responsibility and
sustainability reporting practices. However, in developing countries such as Kenya, environmental disclosure
remains voluntary and inconsistent because of the absence of comprehensive accounting standards,
environmental reporting policies, and legal frameworks compelling firms to disclose environmental information.
Firm characteristics have been identified as key determinants of environmental disclosure practices. Among
these characteristics, firm size has received considerable attention in empirical literature. Larger firms are
generally expected to disclose more environmental information because they attract greater public attention, face
increased stakeholder pressure, and possess sufficient resources to support disclosure initiatives.
Statement of the Problem
With the development of technology and society, environmental issues have continued to be of the most pressing
social issues facing corporations’ worldwide. The environmental issues are increasingly becoming important for
Page 146
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
business hence the growing pressure on companies to respond to environmental issues is becoming very difficult
to ignore. Kenyan companies disclose various environmental issues in their annual financial reports, company
websites and company in-house journals. Despite this efforts Kenyan companies do this voluntarily as there are
no laws or regulations that compel them to disclose environmental issues, this includes drought, deforestation,
water pollution, soil erosion, desertification among others. Therefore, Kenyans require protection against
environmental degradation.
There have been a number of empirical studies done on the extent of environmental disclosure in the annual
reports and on the relationship of environmental disclosure with variables like corporate size, nature of industry,
Financial Leverage and profitability among others (Muhasebe 2014, Dion van de Burgwal et al, 2014).
Researchers have found that while majority of the companies disclosed at least some environmental information
the level of disclosure is generally low (Roberts C, 2002). Both public and private investors have a role to play
in encouraging business to adopt better environmental practices and standards.
The major problem is attributed to lack of accounting standards, guidelines, laws or government policies that
would require firms operating in Kenya to disclose environmental issues. This therefore necessitates an
investigation to determine the effect of firm size on environmental disclosure among firms listed on the Nairobi
Securities Exchange.
Research Objective
To determine the effect of firm size on environmental disclosure among firms listed on the Nairobi Securities
Exchange.
Research Hypothesis
Ho
1
.Firm size has no statistically significant effect on environmental disclosure among firms listed on the
Nairobi Securities Exchange.
THEORETICAL LITERATURE
The study was guided by stakeholder and legitimacy theories.
Stakeholder Theory
Stakeholder theory argues that organizations are accountable to a wide range of stakeholders, including investors,
customers, employees, government agencies, and local communities. Firms therefore disclose environmental
information to satisfy stakeholder expectations and maintain positive relationships with society.
Legitimacy Theory
Legitimacy theory suggests that firms disclose environmental information to legitimize their operations and align
organizational activities with societal values and expectations. Large firms are more visible to the public and are
therefore more likely to disclose environmental information to maintain legitimacy.
Empirical Review
Previous studies have established mixed findings regarding the relationship between firm size and environmental
disclosure. Some studies found that larger firms disclose more environmental information due to higher political
costs and public scrutiny, while others reported insignificant relationships. Large firms are often associated with
increased environmental impacts and therefore face greater pressure to disclose environmental activities. Such
firms also possess sufficient financial and managerial resources necessary for environmental reporting.
The increasing adoption of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reporting globally has also influenced
the quality and extent of environmental disclosures. ESG reporting has become a strategic tool used by firms to
Page 147
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
demonstrate commitment to sustainability and attract socially responsible investors (Friede et al., 2015). In
Kenya and other African countries, studies reveal that environmental disclosure among listed firms is still
developing. Studies from other developing countries also report low but improving levels of environmental
disclosure. In Nigeria, Uwuigbe et al. (2018) found that environmental reporting among manufacturing firms
was largely qualitative and narrative in nature. In Bangladesh, Dey et al. (2020) observed that environmental
disclosure practices were influenced by company size, profitability, and industry sensitivity. Likewise, research
in India by Kumar and Firoz (2019) established that environmentally sensitive industries such as energy, mining,
and manufacturing disclosed more environmental information than firms operating in less sensitive industries.
In China, environmental disclosure has significantly improved due to government regulations and investor
pressure. Li et al. (2021) found that state-owned enterprises and firms operating in environmentally sensitive
industries were more likely to disclose environmental information. Similarly, Zhang et al. (2022) reported that
firms with strong corporate governance structures and better financial performance disclosed higher-quality
environmental information.
Research in developed economies has also demonstrated increased environmental reporting practices. In Europe,
García-Sánchez et al. (2020) found that mandatory sustainability reporting regulations improved the quantity
and quality of environmental disclosures among listed firms. In Australia, environmental disclosures have
become more comprehensive due to stakeholder expectations and sustainability reporting standards (Adams &
Frost, 2008).
Several studies have identified determinants of environmental disclosure. Firm size, profitability, industry type,
ownership structure, and financial leverage are among the most common factors influencing environmental
reporting practices (Clarkson et al., 2011; Reverte, 2009). Companies operating in environmentally sensitive
industries tend to disclose more information to maintain legitimacy and manage stakeholder perceptions (Cho
& Patten, 2007).
Recent literature also indicates that digital reporting platforms and integrated reporting frameworks have
transformed environmental disclosure practices. Firms increasingly use websites and sustainability portals to
communicate environmental initiatives and ESG performance to stakeholders (KPMG, 2022).
FIRM SIZE AS DETERMINANTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL DISCLOSURE
Firm size refers to total assets disclosed in the organization annual reports. Legitimacy theory suggests that larger
companies have to respond with more disclosures to have a greater impact on social expectations because they
have more stakeholders than small companies (Cowen, Ferreri, & Parker, 1987). Many previous studies (Cormier
& Gordon, 2001; Ho & Taylor, 2007; Raar, 2002; Stanwick & Stanwick, 2006) found a positive association
between amounts of environmental disclosure in corporate annual reports and the size of companies although
(Patten, 2002) did not find such a relationship.
Large companies are usually exposed to greater attention from stakeholders in relation to their environmental
performance than smaller firms and, therefore, they face greater pressures to disclose more information than
smaller firms. Further, as suggested by Wong and Fryxell (2004), as a result of the increased awareness and
concern about environmental issues, large companies are interested in projecting an image of themselves as firms
engaged in the protection of the environment and, in this sense, they consider the disclosure of environmental
information as a way to enhance the company’s public image and reputation. On the other hand, the preparation
and disclosure of environmental information is costly and, in comparison to medium and small firms, larger
companies can afford to spend the financial and technical resources that are necessary to prepare and disclose
environmental information and, consequently, it is more likely that they provide such information.
A study by (Monteiro et al, 2009) focused on the environmental disclosures made in the annual reports by a
sample of 109 large firms operating in Portugal during the period 2002–2004 they found that firm size and the
listing of company on the stock market are positively and statistically related to the extent of environmental
disclosure.
Page 148
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Haddock (2005) identified a significant relationship between provision of environmental reports and turnover in
the UK food manufacturing and retail sector. Roberts (1992), Patten (2002) and Cormier and Magnan (2003)
considered motivations for environmental reporting and suggested that larger firms are more likely to report as
a result of greater vulnerability to media visibility, and as a means to manage external stakeholder perceptions.
This was reinforced by Gonzalez-Benito and Gonzalez-Benito (2006), who considered that large companies
were more likely to be environmentally proactive as a result of greater resource availability. This occurred for a
number of reasons including greater pressure from the social and political environment, economies of scale
enabling lower marginal costs of environmental management than for their smaller counterparts, and the fact
that their environmental efforts have an impact on a larger number of customers.
Despite extensive international evidence, limited empirical studies have examined the effect of firm size on
environmental disclosure among firms listed on the Nairobi Securities Exchange. Existing findings remain
inconclusive, creating a contextual and empirical gap that this study seeks to address.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE DEPENDENT VARIABLE
Figure1: Developed Structure of the Study
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
The study adopted an explanatory research design to establish the causal relationship between firm size and
environmental disclosure.
Target Population
The study targeted annual financial reports of listed firms at Nairobi Securities Exchange (NSE). Currently NSE
has fifty five (55) listed firms from the five sectors as categorized by the Nairobi Securities Exchange. These
were chosen for the study as the researcher believed that the study population give an overview of the situation
of environmental disclosure as it is on the ground among firms listed at the NSE. They were also targeted because
it was easier to access their Audited financial reports through the Nairobi Securities Exchange and Capital
Market Authority (CMA) for the purposes of data collection and analysis.
Data Collection
The study relied exclusively on secondary data obtained from audited annual reports of listed firms. Content
analysis was used to extract environmental disclosure information from the reports.
Data Collection Procedure
Document analysis techniques was used to obtain secondary data from the listed firms’ annual audited financial
reports for the period of 2008 to 2012. The firm’s annual financial reports are documents produced regularly as
a regulatory requirement. The required data that shed light on the environmental disclosures was extracted from
individual firm financial statement. This information was sourced from the individual firm’s website, published
newspapers, NSE and CMA databases. The study adopted the document analysis techniques indicated in Table
1.
Page 149
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Table 1: Disclosure Check List
No
Themes
200
8
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
1
Environmental policy including environmental targets, management’s
environmental policy statement, company concern for the environmental
issues
2
Environmental protection including activities, expenditures, tree
plantation, land rehabilitation
3
Compliance with Environmental Management Standards and laws and
regulations including certification and environmental effect assessment
report
4
Energy including expenditure, savings and new sources
5
Ground water protection
6
Renewable resources used
7
Water pollution
8
Global warming
9
Climate change
10
Certification of environmental programs by independent agencies and
audits
11
Product certification with respect to environmental impact.
12
Waste management including recycling, water discharge and toxic waste
Reliability of the Research Instrument
A measure of research instrument is reliable when applied repeatedly under similar conditions and yield
consistent results (Mugenda and Mugenda, 1999). Before the actual data analysis the study established the
reliability of the research instrument. This was done by using internal consistency techniques. A sample of firms
that qualified for the study from the study population was taken for the test hence correlated among the study
items for similar period of research.
Validity of the Research Instruments
Validity of an instrument is the success of a scale in measuring what it sets out to measure so that differences in
individual scores can be taken as representing true differences on the characteristics under study (Koul, 1992).
Therefore, validity is concerned with whether the study really gathers (obtain) the required information using
the instrument Kerlinger, 1983). Construct validity was attained since the study was for a period of five years
for all the sampled firms listed at NSE. On the other hand, content validity was achieved by the identification of
the indicators of firm size and environmental disclosure. This will ensure that all the relevant information is
Page 150
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
captured to enhance validity. Previous studies in regard to environmental disclosures have also analyzed annual
reports by using content analysis (Ahmed and Sulaiman, 2004; Cunningham and Gadenne, 2003.
Measurement of Variables
Dependent Variable
Environmental disclosure was measured using an environmental disclosure index developed from a checklist of
environmental disclosure items.
Independent Variable
Firm size was measured using the logarithm of total annual sales turnover.
Data Analysis
Data analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics and regression analysis through SPSS software. Pearson
correlation analysis was also used to determine the strength and direction of the relationship between firm size
and environmental disclosure.
The regression model was specified as:
Therefore, the relationship between firm characteristics and environmental disclosure followed regression model
of the nature;
Y
it
= β
0
+β
1
X
1it
+ €
it
………………………………….. (i)
Where; Y
it
= Disclosure index level.
X
1it
= Size of the firm indicated by log of total revenue (annual sales turnover).
β = coefficient Slopes of the independent variables.
β
0
= A constant or the value of Y when all X values are Zero.
€
it
= The error term, normally distributed about a mean of 0.
Disclosure index level = Σej/e
j=1
Disclosure index level= Environmental disclosure index of company i.
ej= Environmental item j. Dummy variable, whose value is 1 if the company discloses information about this
item and 0 if the Firm does not disclose information about it.
e =Maximum number of items (12).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Descriptive Statistics
Environmental Disclosure Index
A descriptive analysis was performed to observe the mean scores of corporate environmental disclosure for the
Page 151
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
period 2008 to 2012. The environmental disclosure index gives the lowest and highest scores as 0.00 and 1.00
respectively resulting to a range of 1.00. On an average a company disclosed 0.40 of the items included in the
index. The standard deviation indicates a variation of 0.29195. It’s observed that companies surveyed disclosed
approximately 40% of the items in the disclosures checklist. The results therefore, shows that there is a low
variation in the level of Environmental disclosure between companies listed on the NSE. Firms tended to report
on their compliance with environmental laws and regulations. The few disclosure that were made included but
not limited to renewable sources of energy, water pollution, climate change, global warming, certification of
environmental programs, energy including expenditure, saving and new sources and waste management among
others.
Firm Size.
The firm size gave the minimum and maximum scores of 16.66 and 25.51 giving a range of 8.85 and a standard
deviation of 1.63. The mean of 22.2 indicate the average size of firms listed at NSE during the study period in
respect to their sales volume indicating that there are great variations among the companies sizes listed on the
NSE. This suggests that Kenyan firm size in terms of sales turnover is very low and therefore firms should
increase their sales revenue. Further this indicates that firms require necessary capital for expansion and growth
this will aid the listed firms to disclose more environmental information since they have adequate capital to
finance its operations as well as to participate in various environmental initiatives.
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Skewness
Kurtosis
Firm Size
8.85
16.66
25.51
22.2001
1.65315
-.697
1.391
DISCINDEX
1.00
.00
1.00
.4098
.29195
.197
-.794
Source: Survey Data
Inferential Analysis
The study used one-way ANOVA (F-test), Pearson correlation and multiple regressions in testing the hypotheses
formulated and determining the strength of relationship among variables. Multiple regressions were specifically
used to model the relationship between firm size and environmental disclosure. The result of the analysis is
presented on Table 3.
Table 3 Pearson Correlations
DISCINDEX
Firm Size
DISCINDEX
1
.217
**
.001
Firm Size
.217
**
1
.001
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Page 152
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
The findings revealed that firm size had a positive and statistically significant relationship with environmental
disclosure among firms listed on the Nairobi Securities Exchange.
CORRELATIONS FOR FIRM SIZE AND OTHER VARIABLE UNDER STUDY
The study examined across association between size of the firm and environmental disclosure. From the Table
3 the Pearson Correlation value show that Firm size and environmental disclosure are positively related (r=.217,
p=.001). The sig. (2-tailed) shows whether the relationship is significant at either 0.01 or 0.05 level of
significance. From the output the relationship is significant.
Table 4 shows the results of symmetric measures which indicates that both the values of Cramer’s V and
Contingency Coefficient are high (.996 and .960) indicating a high association between firm size and
environmental disclosure since the statistics are close to 1. The significance value was (p = .386) which is more
than the recommended (p< .05) hence the strength of the relationship is significant. These results confirm
outcome of the Pearson correlation test and give an idea of the size of the firm effects.
Table 4 Symmetric Measures for Size of the Firm
Value
Asymptotic
Standardized Error
a
Approximate
T
b
Approximate
Significance
Nominal by
Nominal
Phi
3.449
.386
Cramer's V
.996
.386
Contingency
Coefficient
.960
.386
Ordinal by
Ordinal
Kendall's tau-b
.090
.045
2.019
.044
Kendall's tau-c
.092
.046
2.019
.044
Gamma
.095
.047
2.019
.044
Spearman
Correlation
.129
.063
2.052
.041
c
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c. Based on normal approximation
REGRESSION RESULTS
In order to establish the relationship between firm size, firm financial performance, industry type, and leverage
and environmental disclosure regression analysis was performed, whose result summary is presented in Table 5.
It can be seen from Table 5 (regression model table) that the R-squared is .312, which implies that the model is
capable of explaining 31.2% of the variation on environmental disclosure in annual reports of Kenyan firms
listed on the NSE. The adjusted R2 is .29.5 which indicates that 29.5% of the variations in the dependent variable
in the model used is explained by variations in the independent variables. The F value of 18.352 is significant
(.000) at 6 degrees of freedom hence all variables as a group in the regression model explain the variations in
the environmental disclosure level in companies annual reports of firms listed on the NSE
Page 153
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Table 5: Regression Model Summary
Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the Estimate
1
.558
a
.312
.295
.24516
a. Predictors: (Constant), Firm Size.
Table 6 Anova
Model
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
1
Regression
6.618
6
1.103
18.352
.000
b
Residual
14.606
243
.060
Total
21.224
249
a. Dependent Variable: DISCINDEX
b. Predictors: (Constant), Firm Size.
Table 7 Regression Equation
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t
Sig.
B
Std.
Error
Beta
1
(Constant)
.410
.016
26.427
.000
Zscore: Firm Size
.043
.017
.147
2.608
.010
a. Dependent Variable: DISCINDEX
Regression analysis results indicated that: β=0.147, p=0.010\beta =0.147, p = 0.010β=0.147,p=0.010
The findings imply that an increase in firm size leads to an increase in the level of environmental disclosure.
Firm size had a positive and significant effect on environmental disclosure (β = 0.147, p = 0.010). Pearson
correlation analysis showed a positive association between firm size and environmental disclosure (r = 0.217, p
= 0.001).
The findings indicate that Firm size has a statistically significant but relatively weak positive influence on
environmental disclosure. This may be attributed to the fact that larger firms attract greater public attention and
stakeholder scrutiny. Consequently, such firms disclose environmental information to enhance corporate image,
legitimacy, and stakeholder confidence.
The findings support legitimacy theory, which posits that organizations disclose environmental information to
justify their operations within society. Large firms are highly visible and therefore experience pressure to
demonstrate environmental responsibility through disclosure practices.
Page 154
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
CONCLUSION
The study concludes that Firm size has a statistically significant but relatively weak positive influence on
environmental disclosure. Larger firms were found to disclose more environmental information than smaller
firms.
The findings suggest that organizational visibility and stakeholder pressure increase with firm size, thereby
encouraging firms to adopt more transparent environmental reporting practices.
However, the overall level of environmental disclosure among Kenyan firms remains relatively low due to the
voluntary nature of disclosure and lack of mandatory reporting standards.
LIMITATIONS OF STUDY
The study was limited by its reliance on secondary data, its focus on NSE-listed firms only, and its coverage of
a five-year study period, which may restrict the generalizability and long-term applicability of the findings
Future Research
Future studies should examine additional determinants of environmental disclosure such as profitability,
ownership structure, board characteristics, and leverage
RECOMMENDATIONS
The study recommends that:
1. Regulatory authorities should develop mandatory environmental disclosure standards for listed firms in
Kenya.
2. Firms should enhance environmental reporting practices to improve transparency and accountability.
3. The Nairobi Securities Exchange should establish sustainability reporting guidelines for listed firms.
4. Smaller firms should be encouraged to adopt environmental disclosure practices to improve corporate
responsibility and stakeholder trust.
REFERENCES
1. Adams, C. A., & Frost, G. R. (2008). Integrating sustainability reporting into management practices.
Accounting Forum, 32(4), 288–302.
2. Cho, C. H., & Patten, D. M. (2007). The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7–8), 639–647.
3. Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D., & Vasvari, F. P. (2008). Revisiting the relation between
environmental performance and environmental disclosure. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4–
5), 303–327.
4. Clarkson, P. M., Overell, M. B., & Chapple, L. (2011). Environmental reporting and its relation to
corporate environmental performance. Abacus, 47(1), 27–60.
5. Dey, P. K., Malesios, C., De, D., Chowdhury, S., & Abdelaziz, F. B. (2020). The impact of environmental
and social practices on firm performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(3), 1424–1441.
6. Friede, G., Busch, T., & Bassen, A. (2015). ESG and financial performance: Aggregated evidence from
more than 2000 empirical studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5(4), 210–233.
7. García-Sánchez, I. M., Hussain, N., Martínez-Ferrero, J., & Ruiz-Barbadillo, E. (2020). Impact of
disclosure and assurance quality of corporate sustainability reports on access to finance. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2), 825–841.
Page 155
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
8. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). (2021). GRI universal standards 2021. Global Reporting Initiative.
9. IFRS Foundation. (2023). International sustainability disclosure standards. IFRS Foundation.
10. Issa, A., Ahmed, E., & Mwangi, M. (2023). Environmental disclosure practices and firm performance in
emerging economies. Journal of Environmental Accounting and Management, 11(2), 145–160.
11. KPMG. (2022). Big shifts, small steps: Survey of sustainability reporting 2022. KPMG International.
12. Kumar, P., & Firoz, M. (2019). Corporate environmental disclosure practices in India: Evidence from
environmentally sensitive industries. Social Responsibility Journal, 15(5), 567–583.
13. Li, D., Zhao, Y., Sun, Y., & Yin, D. (2021). Corporate environmental performance, environmental
information disclosure, and financial performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(1), 97–111.
14. Montabon, F., Sroufe, R., & Narasimhan, R. (2007). An examination of corporate reporting, environmental
management practices and firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 25(5), 998–1014.
15. Ong, T. S., Teh, B. H., Soh, W. N., & Yan, Y. L. (2021). Environmental disclosure practices and firm
performance in developing economies. Sustainability, 13(4), 2234.
16. Reverte, C. (2009). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure ratings by Spanish listed
firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(2), 351–366.
17. Uwuigbe, U., Teddy, O., & Uwuigbe, O. R. (2018). Corporate environmental reporting and firm
performance: Evidence from listed firms in Nigeria. International Journal of Energy Economics and
Policy, 8(2), 239–245.
18. Zhang, F., Qin, X., & Liu, L. (2022). Environmental disclosure and corporate sustainability performance:
Evidence from emerging markets. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 13(4),
789–812.
