Search Advanced

Green Finance

2023, Volume 5, Issue 2: 211-239. doi: 10.3934/GF.2023009
Previous Article Next Article
Research article

Cultural context, organizational performance and Sustainable Development Goals: A pending task

  • 1.
    Department of Accounting and Finance, Universidad de Zaragoza, C/María de Luna, 3–Zaragoza 50018, Spain
  • 2.
    Department of Business Management and INARBE, Universidad Pública de Navarra, Campus Arrosadía s/n–Pamplona 31006, Spain
  • 3.
    Department of Business Management, Universidad Pública de Navarra, Campus Arrosadía s/n–Pamplona, 31006, Spain
  • Received: 20 April 2023 Revised: 01 June 2023 Accepted: 13 June 2023 Published: 20 June 2023

  • JEL Codes: M14, G3

  • The collaboration of private companies in the fulfillment of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is key to address global challenges of climate change, social inequality and environmental degradation. This collaboration can also boost their own organizational performance. However, the research on the relationship between SDG commitment and organizational performance remains inconclusive. The diversity of findings could stem from cross-cultural differences in corporate environments. The aim of this study, therefore, was to analyze the interaction between SDG commitment and organizational performance and to examine how this interaction is influenced by cultural factors. Using simultaneous equation modeling on a sample of 3,420 companies from 30 countries for the period 2015 to 2020, our results show that engagement with SDGs has an impact on organizational performance levels which is further enhanced by the catalytic effect of certain cultural factors.

    Citation: Ana Bellostas, Cristina Del Río, Karen González-Álvarez, Francisco J López-Arceiz. Cultural context, organizational performance and Sustainable Development Goals: A pending task[J]. Green Finance, 2023, 5(2): 211-239. doi: 10.3934/GF.2023009

    Related Papers:

    [1] Joseph F. Hair, Juan José García-Machado, Minerva Martínez-Avila . The impact of organizational compliance culture and green culture on environmental behavior: The moderating effect of environmental commitment. Green Finance, 2023, 5(4): 624-657. doi: 10.3934/GF.2023024
    [2] Fu-Hsaun Chen . Green finance and gender equality: Keys to achieving sustainable development. Green Finance, 2024, 6(4): 585-611. doi: 10.3934/GF.2024022
    [3] Sabuj Saha, Ahmed Rizvan Hasan, Kazi Rezwanul Islam, Md Asraful Islam Priom . Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) practices and firms' financial performance: Moderating role of country governance. Green Finance, 2024, 6(1): 162-198. doi: 10.3934/GF.2024007
    [4] Inna Semenenko, Yana Bilous, Ruslan Halhash . The compliance of the regional development strategies and funding with the sustainable development concept: The case of Ukraine. Green Finance, 2022, 4(2): 159-178. doi: 10.3934/GF.2022008
    [5] Jacob Guinot, Zina Barghouti, Inmaculada Beltrán-Martín, Ricardo Chiva . Corporate social responsibility toward employees and green innovation: Exploring the link in the tourism sector. Green Finance, 2023, 5(2): 298-320. doi: 10.3934/GF.2023012
    [6] Paul Adjei Kwakwa, Frank Adusah-Poku, Kwame Adjei-Mantey . Towards the attainment of sustainable development goal 7: what determines clean energy accessibility in sub-Saharan Africa?. Green Finance, 2021, 3(3): 268-286. doi: 10.3934/GF.2021014
    [7] Lars Carlsen . The state of the 'Prosperity' pillar by 2022: A partial ordering-based analysis of the sustainable development goals 7–11. Green Finance, 2023, 5(2): 89-101. doi: 10.3934/GF.2023005
    [8] Mukul Bhatnagar, Sanjay Taneja, Ercan Özen . A wave of green start-ups in India—The study of green finance as a support system for sustainable entrepreneurship. Green Finance, 2022, 4(2): 253-273. doi: 10.3934/GF.2022012
    [9] Paul Agu Igwe, Mahfuzur Rahman, Kenny Odunukan, Nonso Ochinanwata, Obiamaka P. Egbo, Chinedu Ochinanwata . Drivers of diversification and pluriactivity among smallholder farmers—evidence from Nigeria. Green Finance, 2020, 2(3): 263-283. doi: 10.3934/GF.2020015
    [10] Óscar Suárez-Fernández, José Manuel Maside-Sanfiz, Mª Celia López-Penabad, Mohammad Omar Alzghoul . Do diversity & inclusion of human capital affect ecoefficiency? Evidence for the energy sector. Green Finance, 2024, 6(3): 430-456. doi: 10.3934/GF.2024017

  • The collaboration of private companies in the fulfillment of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is key to address global challenges of climate change, social inequality and environmental degradation. This collaboration can also boost their own organizational performance. However, the research on the relationship between SDG commitment and organizational performance remains inconclusive. The diversity of findings could stem from cross-cultural differences in corporate environments. The aim of this study, therefore, was to analyze the interaction between SDG commitment and organizational performance and to examine how this interaction is influenced by cultural factors. Using simultaneous equation modeling on a sample of 3,420 companies from 30 countries for the period 2015 to 2020, our results show that engagement with SDGs has an impact on organizational performance levels which is further enhanced by the catalytic effect of certain cultural factors.


    1.   Introduction

    One of the concerns of drug delivery today is to identify and minimize drug errors in the medical system. Patients admitted to intensive care units require continuous care and multifaceted remedies, but with increasing severity of disease and changes in organ function as well as the concomitant use of multiple medications, these patients are exposed to more polypharmacy and medication interactions [1],[2]. Drug interactions can increase the length of hospital stay, failure of treatment, and increased medical costs [3],[4]. Although most drug interactions are preventable, sometimes patients are exposed to important complications and even death [5].

    The risk and severity of drug interactions depend on several factors, including the number of prescription drugs, the duration of treatment, the age of the patient, the number of drug-prescribing physicians, and the stage of the disease [6]. Treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU) covers a significant portion of hospital costs and human resources. According to the Kane-Gill study, the amount of medications consumed in the ICU accounts for 38% of the hospital's total medical costs [7],[8], and the cost of medication for patients admitted to this ward is equivalent to one night's hospital stay, which doubles the cost of the patient [7],[8].

    According to the Iranian Ministry of Health and Medical Education, billions of dollars are spent each year on patient care and care due to medication errors, followed by complications of a prolonged stay in hospital [9]. In a study, it was concluded that the annual cost of 29250 dollars will be discounted from indirect costs if one percent of important drug interactions were clinically prevented; because three days will be added to the length of stay of each patient, developing such a drug interaction so that one day will be necessary to identify the drug interaction and two days for deciding on a solution and returning the patient to a normal state [10]. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of drug interactions and polypharmacy in the ICU in Golestan Hospital of Ahvaz and the ranking of the clinical importance of drug interactions.

    2.   Materials and methods

    A descriptive epidemiologic study was conducted to determine the polypharmacy and drug interactions in patients admitted to the ICU of Golestan teaching hospital of Ahvaz for three months from 2018-10-23 to 2019-01-21.

    The inclusion criteria were patient staying longer than 48 hours in the ward and receiving at least two medications simultaneously.

    Polypharmacy does not have a single definition globally. Since the large number of studies have reported polypharmacy as taking five drugs [11],[12], the present study also considered the use of five drugs or more as polypharmacy. In this study, the types of drug interactions were classified as follows: A: no known interaction; B: the drug interaction does not require clinical treatment; C0: drug interactions requiring treatment monitoring, considered by the physician or not monitorable at the time of the study (for example, monitoring the sedative effects of medications in patients with coma); C1: drug interactions requiring treatment monitoring, missed by the physician); D0: drug interactions requiring dose adjustment, addressed by the physician or not monitorable at the time of study (for example, monitoring the sedative effects of medications in patients with coma); D1: the interactions requiring dose adjustment, missed by the physician; X: drug interaction with the advised category for no concomitant use.

    The number and type of interactions were evaluated in terms of severity and classification. Nutritional supplements, serums, electrolytes, PRN drugs, and topical medications were not evaluated. The classification of drug interactions in the studied patients is shown in Table 1.

    Table 1.  Classification of drug interactions in the studied patients.
    Type of drug interaction Definition
    A No known interaction
    B This drug interaction does not require clinical treatment.
    C0 This drug interaction requires treatment monitoring, addressed by the physician or not monitorable at the time of study*.
    C1 This drug interaction requires treatment monitoring, missed by the physician.
    D0 This drug interaction requiring dose adjustment, addressed by the physician or not monitorable at the time of study*
    D1 This drug interaction requiring dose adjustment, missed by the physician

    * e. g. monitoring the sedative effects of medications in patients with coma.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    2.1.   Statistical analysis

    The values of quantitative variables (length of hospitalization, the number of visiting physicians, the number of prescription medications, and the number of drug interactions) are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (SD). The values of qualitative variables (gender, age groups, background disease, and cause disease) are presented as frequencies. The normality of the data was assessed by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The statistical tests such as the Mann-Whitney and the Kruskal-Wallis were used to compare mean values of quantitative variables in the levels of qualitative variables. The association between polypharmacy status and qualitative variables was analyzed using the chi-square test. Also, the association between quantitative variables was analyzed using the Spearman correlation coefficient test. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 18. The P-values of less than 0.05 was considered a significant statistical difference.

    3.   Results

    The demographic and clinical characteristics of enrolled patients was given in Table 2.

    Table 2.  Demographic and clinical data of the studied patients (N = 80).
    Clinical and demographic data Number (%)
    Gender:
     Male 58 (72.5)
     Female 22 (27.5)
    Diagnoses:
     Traumatic cerebral hemorrhage 35 (43.8)
     Non-traumatic cerebral hemorrhage 21 (26.2)
    Number of drugs per patient (Mean ± SD) 10 ± 4.1
    Length of hospitalization (Mean ± SD) 6 ± 4.1
    Number of physicians who prescribed drug to single patient (mean ± SD) 5 ± 2.1
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Out of 80 patients admitted in this study, 72.5% (58 patients) were male and 27.5% (22 patients) were female, with a mean age of 39.8 years. In terms of hospitalization, 46.2% and 25.3% were hospitalized due to trauma, and non-traumatic cerebral hemorrhage, respectively. A total to 8.3% due to a brain tumor, 10% due to surgery, 8.8% due to other cases (such as hydrocephalus, aneurysms, cancers, and gastrointestinal bleeding). The average hospitalization duration in these patients was 6.1 ± 4.1 days. The average number of drug-prescribing physicians was 5.0 ± 2.1.

    Ten prescription drugs with higher frequency are shown in Table 3.

    Table 3.  Ten prescription drugs with high frequency.
    Medication Number of Prescriptions (%) Medication Number of Prescriptions (%)
    Enoxaparin 48 (5.9) Vancomycin 35 (4.3)
    Phenytoin 43 (5.3) Pantoprazole 30 (3.7)
    Bromhexine 43 (5.3) Levetiracetam 22 (2.7)
    Ranitidine 40 (4.9) Clindamycin 20 (2.4)
    Ceftazidime 39 (4.8) Phenidate 16 (1.1)
    Total: 818
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    In this study, the total number of prescription drugs in the 80 records studied was 818 drugs among 101 classes. Out of 818 prescription drugs, 400 were injectable drugs. The mean number of medications prescribed for these patients was 10 ± 4.1. At least 2 medications were administered per person at a time, and the maximum number of medications administered was 25 medications at a time.

    The frequency and percentage of total interactions detected are shown in Table 4.

    Table 4.  Frequency and percentage of total interactions detected.
    Types of Interactions Frequency Percentage
    A 3 0.8
    B 52 13
    C0 118 32
    C1 135 38
    D0 18 5
    D1 28 6
    X 4 1.2
    Total 358 100
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    A total of 91.2% of patients received more than five drugs. So, the frequency of polypharmacy was 91.2%, including 43.7% in the case of taking more than ten drugs, 47.5% in the case of taking between 5–9 drugs, and 8.8% in the case of taking between zero to 4 drugs.

    The total number of interactions was 358, and the most common interactions were between phenytoin, and ranitidine (Table 5).

    Table 5.  Frequency of drug interactions in the sample.
    Medicinal compound Frequency Percentage
    Phenytoin and Ranitidine 23 28.8
    Enoxaparin and Vitamin E 12 15
    Enoxaparin and KCL 8 10
    Enoxaparin and Aspirin 6 7.5
    Ranitidine and Caco3 6 7.5
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    A comparison between the number of drug interactions with demographic and clinical information of the patients is shown in Table 6.

    Table 6.  Comparison between the number of drug interactions with demographic and clinical information of the patients (n = 80).
    Variable P-value
    Gender Z = −0.24, P*= 0.811
    Age r = 0.086, P** = 0.452
    Length of hospitalization r = 0.44, P** < 0.001
    Number of visiting physicians r = 0.08, P** = 0.51
    Number of prescription medications r = 0.79, P** < 0.001

    *: Mann–Whitney U test; **: Spearman correlation coefficient test.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Results showed a positive significant relationship between drug interactions and the number of days and the number of drugs received (respectively P < 0.001 and P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant relationship between the number of drug interactions and gender, age, the number of visiting physicians (P > 0.05). The mean number of drug interactions in females was equal to 4.86 ± 6.34 and in males was equal to 4.38 ± 4.75. Also, there was no statistically significant difference between number of drug interactions of male and female (P > 0.05).

    A comparison between polypharmacy status and demographic and clinical information of the patients is shown in Table 7.

    Table 7.  Comparison between polypharmacy status and demographic and clinical information of the patients (n = 80).
    Variable Polypharmacy
    		 P-value
    Yes (n = 73) No (n = 7)
    Gender Male 52 (89.6%) 6 (10.4%) χ2 (1) = 0.19, P* = 0.66
    Female 21 (99.5%) 1 (0.5%)
    Age 40.3 ± 21.3 35 ± 32.5 Z= −0.31, P** = 0.756
    Length of hospitalization 6.4 ± 4.1 2.9 ± 1.4 Z = −2.79, P** = 0.005
    Number of visiting physicians 6.4 ± 4.1 2.86 ± 1.5 Z = −2.45, P** = 0.014
    Number of prescription medications 10.6 ± 4.8 3.71 ± 0.5 Z = −4.36, P** < 0.001
    Number of drug interactions 4.9 ± 5.3 0.43 ± 0.8 Z = −3.38, P** = 0.001

    *: Chi-square test; **: Mann–Whitney U test.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Results showed that there was a significant statistical difference between mean values of the number of days of hospitalization, the number of visiting physicians, Number of prescription medications and the number of drug interactions in patients with and without polypharmacy (respectively P = 0.005, P = 0.014, P < 0.001 and P = 0.001). Also, there was no significant statistical relationship between polypharmacy status and gender, age (P > 0.05).

    4.   Discussion

    This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of drug interactions and polypharmacy in the ICU patient and the ranking of the clinical importance of drug interactions. The prevalence of such an event was relatively high.

    The prevalence of polypharmacy in our study was 91.2%, In a study conducted in ICUs U.S. Children's Hospitals, 89% of patients were no less than one day exposed to ≥ 5 separate generic medications, and a total of 68.2% of patients were no less than one day exposed to ≥ 10 separate generic medications [13]. In another study, out of 5424 prescriptions studied, 751 (13.85%) had polypharmacy, of which highest rates were seen in the Department of Medicine [14]. These studies also were no in agreement with the present study, which may be due to differences in the characteristics of the study population, different patterns of drug use, and differences in the treatment process of the patients studied, various study design, sample size and age category.

    The frequency of drug interactions in the present study was 43.7%. Four X interactions were found between nimodipine and Phenytoin. Nimodipine is indicated for a variety of conditions in elderly patients because these patients often receive a variety of drugs as treatment [15]. This could be a possible reason for candidating this drug for more prevalent drug interaction and polypharmacy. Besides, phenytoin is a potent enzyme inducer that increases the metabolism of nimodipine and reduces its blood concentration in the body. In this case, nimodipine may not work properly. This interaction may be prevented by technically replacing phenytoin with another drug in the category of antiepileptic drugs [16]. A group of gastric acid neutralizing, preventive, and seizure medications in the intensive care unit. The two drugs also topped the over-the-counter medications. Also, in the study conducted by De Almeida et al., the most widely used ICU drugs, following non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, were anticonvulsants and gastric acid neutralizers. About 75% to 100% of patients admitted to the ward is at risk for gastric stress ulcers, so, prevention of this disorder is performed for most patients at risk. Currently using gastric acid-neutralizing drugs such as ranitidine to achieve this goal is a priority.

    Previous studies [17]–[21] have shown that patients admitted to ICU are more susceptible to drug interactions than other patients due to their clinical status, and the number of medications received [22].

    The present study showed that men, women, and different age groups are equally at risk for drug interactions. The present study showed that men, women, and different age groups are at equal risk for drug interactions, which is consistent with the study conducted by Murtaza et al., [23] but in some studies, its prevalence has been more reported in men [16] and in some other studies, it has been more reported in women [6].

    In a study conducted by Lima et al., they show different results, suggesting that women and people over the age of 60 years in the ICU are at greater risk of interactions. They have justified that because women make up a greater percentage of their study samples, they are at greater risk of drug interactions than men and that they also report that due to the presence of several problems and the worsening of clinical conditions in people over 60 years of age, they were more likely to receive more drugs, and it, in turn, increases the risk of drug interactions [18].

    In this study, there was a significant relationship between the occurrence of polypharmacy and the number of visiting physicians. This can be justified by the fact that patients admitted to ICUs are examined and treated by more specialized physicians due to numerous clinical problems, each of whom may prescribe different medications for patients, which may further the number of medications received and the prevalence of polypharmacy. But there was no significant relationship between drug interactions and the number of physicians, which could be due to the presence of intensivist and their monitoring of services provided [17],[24].

    There was also a significant association between the prevalence of polypharmacy and drug interactions with a length of stay, which is consistent with the previous studies [20],[23],[25]. It is natural that patients who were hospitalized longer had a worse clinical condition, needed more treatment. On the other hand, because of their unfavorable clinical condition, they are treated by more physicians and receive more medication, resulting in more drug use and drug interactions.

    The results of the present study also showed that as the number of medications prescribed for patients increased, the likelihood of drug interactions increased, which is consistent with previous studies [17]–[19].

    It seems reasonable that the more the received drugs by a patient, the greater the likelihood of drug interactions, so it is advisable to prescribe as few medicines as possible.

    5.   Conclusion

    The results of this study show that the percentage of polypharmacy and drug interactions were high as two important indicators related to drug treatment problems. The frequency of these problems is higher than reported in other studies in Iran.

    Risk factors such as length of hospitalization, the number of prescription drugs, interactions, and factors such as length of stay, number of prescription medications, and number of drug-prescribing physicians influenced the prevalence of polypharmacy. Here are some strategies to reduce these problems and their consequences:

    (1) If possible, prescribing the least amount of medication and the use of the medicines that have the least number of interactions.

    (2) Paying more attention to sensitive groups such as elderly hospitalized patients, and renal and hepatic failure patients

    (3) Use of drug interaction identification software

    (4) The presence of a clinical pharmacist to reduce drug treatment problems and improve patient conditions

    (5) The need to develop guidelines for revising all patients for discontinuation of low-effect or surplus drugs



    [1] Ahmad N, Buniamin S (2021) The relationship between SDG engagement and corporate financial performance: Evidence from public listed companies in Malaysia. Global Bus Manage Res 13: 730–741.
    [2] Anzola-Román P, Garcia-Marco T, Zouaghi F (2023) The Influence of CSR Orientation on Innovative Performance: Is the Effect Conditioned to the Implementation of Organizational Practices?. J Bus Ethics, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05406-z doi: 10.1007/s10551-023-05406-z
    [3] Atan R, Alam MM, Said J, et al. (2018) The impacts of environmental, social, and governance factors on firm performance: Panel study of Malaysian companies. Manage Environ Quality 29: 182–194. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-03-2017-0033 doi: 10.1108/MEQ-03-2017-0033
    [4] Berrone P, Fosfuri A, Gelabert L, et al. (2013) Necessity as the mother of 'green' inventions: Institutional pressures and environmental innovations. Strat Manage J 34: 891–909. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2041 doi: 10.1002/smj.2041
    [5] Bertelsmann S (2018) Culture and Conflict in Global Perspective, The Cultural Dimensions of Global Conflicts 1945–2007, Bertelsmann Stiftung (ed.), Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung.
    [6] Biermann F, Kanie N, Kim RE (2017) Global governance by goal-setting: The novel approach of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Curr Opin Env Sust 26: 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.010 doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.010
    [7] Blodgett JG, Lu LC, Rose GM, et al. (2001) Ethical sensitivity to stakeholder interests: A cross-cultural comparison. J Acad Mark Sci 29: 190–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/03079459994551 doi: 10.1177/03079459994551
    [8] Bradley SW, Wiklund J, Shepherd DA (2010) Swinging a double-edged sword: The effect of slack on entrepreneurial management and growth. J Bus Venturing 26: 537–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.03.002 doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.03.002
    [9] Buallay A (2019) Between cost and value: Investigating the effects of sustainability reporting on a firm's performance. J Appl Account Res 20: 481–496.https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-12-2017-0137 doi: 10.1108/JAAR-12-2017-0137
    [10] Buhr N, Freedman M (2001) Culture, institutional factors and differences in environmental disclosure between Canada and the United States. Crit Perspect Accoun 12: 293–322. https://doi.org/10.1006/cpac.2000.0435 doi: 10.1006/cpac.2000.0435
    [11] Calabrese A, Costa R, Gastaldi M, et al. (2021) Implications for Sustainable Development Goals: A framework to assess company disclosure in sustainability reporting. J Clean Prod 319: 128624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128624 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128624
    [12] Campagnolo L, Eboli F, Farnia L, et al. (2018) Supporting the UN SDGs transition: Methodology for sustainability assessment and current worldwide ranking. Economics 12: 1–31. https://doi.org/10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2018-10 doi: 10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2018-10
    [13] Chen S, Bouvain P (2009) Is corporate responsibility converging? A comparison of corporate responsibility reporting in the USA, UK, Australia, and Germany. J Bus Ethics 87: 299–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9794-0 doi: 10.1007/s10551-008-9794-0
    [14] Chu Z, Xu J, Lia F, et al. (2018) Institutional theory and environmental pressures: The moderating effect of market uncertainty on innovation and firm performance. IEEE T Eng Manage 65: 392–403. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2018.2794453 doi: 10.1109/TEM.2018.2794453
    [15] Delmas MA, Toffel MW (2008) Organizational responses to environmental demands: Opening the black box. Strat Manage J 29: 1027–1055. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.701 doi: 10.1002/smj.701
    [16] Diaz-Sarachaga JM (2021) Monetizing impacts of Spanish companies toward the Sustainable Development Goals. Corp Soc Resp Env Ma 28: 1313–1323. http://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2149 doi: 10.1002/csr.2149
    [17] DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW (1983) The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am Sociol Rev 48: 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101 doi: 10.2307/2095101
    [18] Doupnik TS, Salter SB (1995) External environment, culture, and accounting practice: A preliminary test of a general model of international accounting development. Int J Account 30: 189–207.
    [19] Durugbo C, Amankwah‐Amoah J (2019) Global sustainability under uncertainty: How do multinationals craft regulatory policies? Corp Soc Resp Env Ma 26: 1500–1516. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1764 doi: 10.1002/csr.1764
    [20] EIKON-Refinitiv (2019). Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Scores. Thomson Reuters.
    [21] Elalfy A, Weber O, Geobey S (2021) The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A rising tide lifts all boats? Global reporting implications in a post SDGs world. J Appl Account Res 22: 557–575. http://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-06-2020-0116 doi: 10.1108/JAAR-06-2020-0116
    [22] Erin O, Bamigboye O, Arumona J (2020) Risk governance and financial performance: An empirical analysis. Bus Theory Practice 21: 758–768. https://doi.org/10.3846/btp.2020.10850 doi: 10.3846/btp.2020.10850
    [23] Erin OA, Bamigboye OA, Oyewo B (2022) Sustainable development goals (SDG) reporting: an analysis of disclosure. J Account Emerg Econ 12: 761–789. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-02-2020-0037 doi: 10.1108/JAEE-02-2020-0037
    [24] Eurostat (2023) https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics explained/index.php?title = Archive: Quality_of_life_in_Europe_-_facts_and_views_-_leisure_and_social_relations
    [25] Faisal F, Tower G, Rusmin R (2015) Legitimising corporate sustainability reporting throughout the world. Aust Account Bus Financ J 6: 19–34.
    [26] Feng Y, Akram R, Hieu VM, et al. (2021) The impact of corporate social responsibility on the sustainable financial performance of Italian firms: Mediating role of firm reputation. Econ Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2021.2017318 doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2021.2017318
    [27] Florini A, Pauli M (2018) Collaborative governance for the Sustainable Development Goals. Asia Pacific Policy Stud 5: 583–598. https://doi.org/10.1002/app5.252 doi: 10.1002/app5.252
    [28] Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: A stakeholder approach, Boston: Pitman Publishing.
    [29] Frey M, Sabbatino A (2018) The role of the private sector in global sustainable development: The UN 2030 agenda, In: Grigore, G., Stancu, A., and McQueen, D. (eds), Corporate responsibility and digital communities: An international perspective towards sustainability, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63480-7_10
    [30] García-Meca E, Martínez-Ferrero J (2021) Is SDG reporting substantial or symbolic? An examination of controversial and environmentally sensitive industries. J Clean Prod 298: 126781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126781 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126781
    [31] Gaziulusoy AI, Brezet H (2015) Design for system innovations and transitions: A conceptual framework integrating insights from sustainability science and theories of system innovations and transitions. J Clean Prod 108: 558–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.066 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.066
    [32] Global UN. (2012). https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/Think%20Pieces/2_culture.pdf
    [33] Gneiting U, Mhlanga R (2021) The partner myth: Analysing the limitations of private sector contributions to the Sustainable Development Goals. Dev Pract 31: 920–926. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2021.1938512 doi: 10.1080/09614524.2021.1938512
    [34] Hák T, Janoušková S, Moldan B (2016) Sustainable Development Goals: A need for relevant indicators. Col Indic 60: 565–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.003 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.003
    [35] Hannan MP, Freeman JH (1977) The population ecology of organizations. Am J Soc 82: 929–964. https://doi.org/10.1086/226424 doi: 10.1086/226424
    [36] Hawley A (1968) Human ecology, In: Sills, D.L. (ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences, New York: Macmillan.
    [37] Hofstede G (2001) Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations, 2 Eds., United States: Sage.
    [38] Hofstede G (2011) Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture 2. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014 doi: 10.9707/2307-0919.1014
    [39] Hofstede G (2022) Hofstede insights. Available from: https://www.hofstede-insights.com/ [Accessed November 24th, 2022].
    [40] Jacob A (2017) Mind the gap: Analyzing the impact of data gap in Millennium Development Goals'(MDGs) indicators on the progress toward MDGs. World Dev 93: 260–278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.12.016 doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.12.016
    [41] Jensen JC, Berg N (2012) Determinants of traditional sustainability reporting versus integrated reporting. An Institutionalist Approach. Bus Strat Environ 21: 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.740 doi: 10.1002/bse.740
    [42] Khaled R, Ali H, Mohamed EK (2021) The Sustainable Development Goals and corporate sustainability performance: Mapping, extent and determinants. J Clean Prod 311: 127599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127599 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127599
    [43] Kücükgül E, Cerin P, Liu Y (2022) Enhancing the value of corporate sustainability: An approach for aligning multiple SDGs guides on reporting. J Clean Prod 333: 130005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130005 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130005
    [44] Lassala C, Orero-Blat M, Ribeiro-Navarrete S (2021) The financial performance of listed companies in pursuit of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Econ Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja 34: 427–449. http://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2021.1877167 doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2021.1877167
    [45] Lee KH, Herold DM (2018) Cultural relevance in Environmental and Sustainability Management Accounting (EMA) in the Asia-Pacific region: A Link between cultural values and accounting values towards EMA values, In: Lee, K.H., and Schaltegger, S. (eds), Accounting for sustainability: Asia Pacific perspectives, Cham: Springer, 11–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70899-7_2
    [46] Li B, Wu K (2017) Environmental management system adoption and the operational performance of firm in the textile and apparel industry of China. Sustainability 9: 1–11. http://doi.org/10.3390/su9060992 doi: 10.3390/su9060992
    [47] Lior N, Radovanović M, Filipović S (2018) Comparing sustainable development measurement based on different priorities: Sustainable Development Goals, economics, and human well-being—Southeast Europe case. Sustainability Sci 13: 973–1000. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0557-2 doi: 10.1007/s11625-018-0557-2
    [48] López-Arceiz FJ, Bellostas AJ, Rivera MP (2017) Accessibility and transparency: Impact on social economy. Online Infor Rev 41: 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-09-2015-0296 doi: 10.1108/OIR-09-2015-0296
    [49] López-Arceiz FJ, Bellostas AJ, Rivera MP (2018) Twenty years of research on the relationship between economic and social performance: A meta-analysis approach. Soc Ind Res 140: 453–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1791-1 doi: 10.1007/s11205-017-1791-1
    [50] López‐Arceiz FJ, Del Río C, Bellostas AJ (2020) Sustainability performance indicators: Definition, interaction, and influence of contextual characteristics. Corp Soc Resp Env Ma 27: 2615–2630. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.1986 doi: 10.1002/csr.1986
    [51] Ma JH, Choi SB, Ahn YH (2017) The impact of eco-friendly management on product quality, financial performance and environmental performance. J Distrib Sci 15: 17–28. https://doi.org/10.15722/jds.15.5.201705.17 doi: 10.15722/jds.15.5.201705.17
    [52] McArthur JW, Rasmussen K (2019) Classifying Sustainable Development Goal trajectories: A country-level methodology for identifying which issues and people are getting left behind. World Dev 123: 104608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.06.031 doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.06.031
    [53] Meyer JW (1979) The impact of the centralization of educational funding and control on state and local organizational governance. Stanford, CA: Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance, Stanford University, Program Report No. 79-B20.
    [54] Meyer JW, Rowan B (1991) Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony, In: Dimaggio, P and Powell, W. (Eds), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [55] Morioka SN, Bolis I, Carvalho MD (2018) From an ideal dream towards reality analysis: Proposing Sustainable Value Exchange Matrix (SVEM) from systematic literature review on sustainable business models and face validation. J Clean Prod 178: 76–88. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.078 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.078
    [56] Muhmad SN, Muhamad R (2021) Sustainable business practices and financial performance during pre-and post-SDG adoption periods: A systematic review. J Sust Financ Invest 11: 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2020.1727724 doi: 10.1080/20430795.2020.1727724
    [57] Muñoz-Torres MJ, Fernandez-Izquierdo MA, Rivera-Lirio JM, et al. (2019) Can environmental, social, and governance rating agencies favor business models that promote a more sustainable development? Corp Soc Resp Env Ma 26: 439–452. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1695 doi: 10.1002/csr.1695
    [58] Naciti V (2019) Corporate governance and board of directors: The effect of a board composition on firm sustainability performance. J Clean Prod 237: 117727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117727 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117727
    [59] Naomi P, Akbar I (2021) Beyond sustainability: empirical evidence from oecd countries on the connection among natural resources, ESG performances, and economic development. Econ Soc 14: 89–106. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2021/14-4/5 doi: 10.14254/2071-789X.2021/14-4/5
    [60] Nicolò G, Zanellato G, Tiron-Tudor A, et al. (2022) Revealing the corporate contribution to Sustainable Development Goals through integrated reporting: A worldwide perspective. Soc Resp J. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-09-2021-0373 doi: 10.1108/SRJ-09-2021-0373
    [61] Nurunnabi M (2015) The impact of cultural factors on the implementation of global accounting standards (IFRS) in a developing country. Adv Account 31: 136–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adiac.2015.03.015 doi: 10.1016/j.adiac.2015.03.015
    [62] Ordonez‐Ponce E (2023) The role of local cultural factors in the achievement of the sustainable development goals. Sust Dev 31: 1122–1134. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2445 doi: 10.1002/sd.2445
    [63] Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2017). Measuring distance to the SDG targets: An assessment of where OECD countries stand OECD. Paris: OECD.
    [64] Ortas E, Moneva JM (2011) Sustainability stock exchange indexes and investor expectations: Multivariate evidence from DJSI-Stoxx. Spanish J Financ Account 40: 395–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/02102412.2011.10779706 doi: 10.1080/02102412.2011.10779706
    [65] Pizzi S, Del Baldo M, Caputo F, et al. (2022) Voluntary disclosure of Sustainable Development Goals in mandatory non‐financial reports: The moderating role of cultural dimension. J Int Financ Manage Account 33: 83–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/jifm.12139 doi: 10.1111/jifm.12139
    [66] Pizzi S, Caputo A, Corvino A, et al. (2020) Management research and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A bibliometric investigation and systematic review. J Clean Prod 276: 124033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124033 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124033
    [67] Pizzi S, Rosati F, Venturelli A (2021) The determinants of business contribution to the 2030 Agenda: Introducing the SDG reporting score. Bus Strat Environ 30: 404–421. http://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2628 doi: 10.1002/bse.2628
    [68] Powell WW, DiMaggio PJ (1984) The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [69] Prexl A, Signitzer B (2008) When a new CEO is ahead: Leadership change processes in the light of change communication, personal public relations, and reputation management. Austria: Veröffentlicht.
    [70] Ramos DL, Chen S, Rabeeu A, et al. (2022) Does SDG coverage influence firm performance? Sustainability 14: 4870. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14094870 doi: 10.3390/su14094870
    [71] Richard PJ, Devinney TM, Yip GS, et al. (2009) Measuring organizational performance: Towards methodological best practice. J Manage 35: 718–804. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308330560 doi: 10.1177/0149206308330560
    [72] RobecoSAM (2022) The sustainability yearbook 2021. Switzerland: S & P Global.
    [73] Rosati F, Faria L (2019a) Addressing the SDGs in sustainability reports: The relationship with institutional factors. J Clean Prod 215: 1312–1326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.107 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.107
    [74] Rosati F, Faria L (2019b) Business contribution to the Sustainable Development Agenda: organizational factors related to early adoption of SDG reporting. Corp Soc Resp Envir Ma 26: 588–597. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1705 doi: 10.1002/csr.1705
    [75] Salem RB, Ayadi SD (2022) The impact of acculturation process and the institutional isomorphism on IFRS adoption. Euro Med J Bus, 1–23.
    [76] Santos MJ, Bastos CS (2020) The adoption of Sustainable Development Goals by large Portuguese companies. Soc Resp J 17: 1079–1099. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-07-2018-0184 doi: 10.1108/SRJ-07-2018-0184
    [77] Scheyvens R, Banks G, Hughes E (2016) The private sector and the SDGs: The need to move beyond 'business as usual'. Sust Dev 24: 371–382. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1623 doi: 10.1002/sd.1623
    [78] Schramade W (2017) Investing in the UN Sustainable Development Goals: Opportunities for companies and investors. J Appl Corp Financ 29: 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/jacf.12236 doi: 10.1111/jacf.12236
    [79] Scott WR (2013) Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities, USA: Sage.
    [80] Sierra Garcia L, Bollas-Araya HM, Garcia Benau MA (2022) Sustainable development goals and assurance of non-financial information reporting in Spain. Sust Account Manage Policy J 13: 878–898. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-04-2021-0131 doi: 10.1108/SAMPJ-04-2021-0131
    [81] Signorini P, Wiesemes R, Murphy R (2009) Developing alternative frameworks for exploring intercultural learning: a critique of Hofstede's cultural difference model. Teach Higher Edu 14: 253–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510902898825 doi: 10.1080/13562510902898825
    [82] Stevens C, Kanie N (2016) The transformative potential of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Int Environ Agree 16: 393–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-016-9324-y doi: 10.1007/s10784-016-9324-y
    [83] Suchman MC (1995) Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Acad Manage Rev 20: 571–610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331 doi: 10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331
    [84] United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. USA: United Nations.
    [85] United Nations (2021) SDG Compass. Available from: https://sdgcompass.org/.
    [86] United Nations Global Compact (2015) A global compact for sustainable development business and the SDGs: Acting responsibly and finding opportunities. Available from: https://www.unglobalcompact.org/library/2291.
    [87] United Nations Global Compact (2020) SDG Ambition. Activating ambitous action to achieve the SDGs. USA: United Nations.
    [88] Van den Heiligenberg HA, Heimeriks GJ, Hekkert MP, et al. (2022) Pathways and harbours for the translocal diffusion of sustainability innovations in Europe. Environ Innov Soc Tr 42: 374–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2022.01.011 doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2022.01.011
    [89] Van Tulder R (2018) Business and the sustainable development goals: A framework for effective corporate involvement, Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    [90] Van Zanten JA, Huij J (2022) Corporate sustainability performance: Introducing an SDG score and testing its validity relative to ESG ratings. Available at SSRN 4186680.
    [91] Van Zanten JA, Van Tulder R (2018) Multinational enterprises and the Sustainable Development Goals: An institutional approach to corporate engagement. J Int Bus Policy 1: 208–233. http://doi.org/10.1057/s42214-018-0008-x doi: 10.1057/s42214-018-0008-x
    [92] Vazquez-Brust D, Piao RS, de Melo MF, et al. (2020). The governance of collaboration for sustainable development: Exploring the "black box". Clean Prod 256: 120260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120260 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120260
    [93] Vildåsen SS (2018) Corporate sustainability in practice: An exploratory study of the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Bus Strat Dev 1: 256–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.35 doi: 10.1002/bsd2.35
    [94] Vormedal IH, Ruud A (2009). Sustainability reporting in Norway - an assessment of performance in the context of legal demands and socio-political drivers. Bus Strat Environ 18: 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.560 doi: 10.1002/bse.560
    [95] Wang Z, Reimsbach D, Braam G (2018) Political embeddedness and the diffusion of corporate social responsibility practices in China: A trade-off between financial and CSR performance? J Clean Prod 198: 1185–1197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.116 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.116
    [96] World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2021) SDG Essentials for Business. World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Geneva.
    [97] Zabala-Aguayo F, Ślusarczyk B (2020) Risks of banking services' digitalization: The practice of diversification and Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability 12: 4040. http://doi.org/10.3390/su12104040 doi: 10.3390/su12104040
    [98] Zampone G, García‐Sánchez IM, Sannino G (2023) Imitation is the sincerest form of institutionalization: Understanding the effects of imitation and competitive pressures on the reporting of sustainable development goals in an international context. Bus Strat Environ. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3357 doi: 10.1002/bse.3357
    [99] Zhang KQ, Chen HH (2017) Environmental performance and financing decisions impact on sustainable financial development of Chinese environmental protection enterprises. Sustainability 9: 1–14. http://doi.org/10.3390/su9122260 doi: 10.3390/su9122260
  • GF-05-02-009-s001.pdf

  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Vitor Miguel Ribeiro, Pioneering paradigms: unraveling niche opportunities in green finance through bibliometric analysis of nation brands and brand culture, 2024, 6, 2643-1092, 287, 10.3934/GF.2024012
    2. Giovanni Vindigni, Overcoming Barriers to Inclusive and Equitable Education: A Systematic Review Towards Achieving Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4), 2024, 1, 3041-1262, 3, 10.59324/ejahss.2024.1(5).01
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2023 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索
Green Finance
5.5 9.6

Metrics

Article views(1980) PDF downloads(147) Cited by(2)

Preview PDF
Download XML
Export Citation
Article outline
Abstract
   Introduction
   Materials and methods
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
References

Figures and Tables

Figures(3)  /  Tables(6)

Other Articles By Authors

Related pages

Tools

Copyright © AIMS Press

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog