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

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

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

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

view full abstract hide full abstract
    • Table 1. Regression output on the test of hypothesis model 2: fixed-effects, using 18 observations included 3 cross-sectional units time-series length = 6 dependent variable: EnvirDiscl
    • Table 2. Normality and heteroskedasticity result