National institutional antecedents to corporate environmental performance

National institutions, stakeholder engagement, and firms' environmental, social, and governance performance

“…Although recent studies (Arrive & Feng, 2018) addressed the influence of business laws and regulations on corporate sustainability issues in emerging countries, there is a need to conduct research directed to capturing the above-mentioned relationship from a global perspective. Second, although existing research (Gallego-Álvarez & Ortas, 2017;Ringov & Zollo, 2007) identified national culture as the country-level driver of companies' ESG performance, we respond to a recent call made by Hartmann and Uhlenbruck (2015) who highlight the need to ascertain the influence of specific understudied national institutions on corporate ESG performance (e.g., family ownership and the role of the state). Third, although most of previous research (Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, & Ganapathi, 2007;Campbell, 2007) measure corporate ESG performance as a global construct, they are not able to explain how national institutions boost or restrict specific dimensions of firms' ESG performance, those being (a) corporate environmental performance (CEP);…”

“…More recently, Hartmann and Uhlenbruck (2015) examined a database of 2,724 international firms to analyze the influence of countries' national institutions on CEP. They argued that studying several dimensions of firms' ESG performance "will allow for a more complete understanding of how institutions affect firms and how this plays out in different countries" (Hartmann & Uhlenbruck, 2015, p. 729).…”

Varieties of institutional systems: A contextual taxonomy of understudied countries

“…Prior studies have shown the usefulness of the configurational approach in explaining a variety of organizational outcomes such as outward and inward foreign direct investment (Pajunen, 2008;Witt & Lewin, 2007), internationalization of state-owned enterprises (Li et al, 2014), cross-national differences in CEO compensation (Greckhamer, 2015), export patterns (Schneider, Schulze-Bentrop, & Paunescu, 2010;Schnedier & Paunescu, 2012), human resource practices (Fenton-O'Creevy, Gooderham, & Nordhaug, 2008), corporate environmental performance (Hartmann & Uhlenbruck, 2015), percentage of women on corporate boards of directors (Grosvold & Brammer, 2011), and equitable wealth creation . For instance, Schnedier and Paunescu (2012) show that the institutional gestalts in the USA and Germany -both in which property rights are well protectedpromote various levels of coordination among economic actors, and therefore are better positioned for radical and incremental innovation, respectively.…”

Does context matter for sustainability disclosure? Institutional factors in Southeast Asia

“…Our study therefore contributes to extant literature in the following ways; first, by locating our study within the SEA region, we extend the existing discussion in global comparative sustainability literature by addressing extant gaps in data in relation to SD from a non‐western, perspective (Jamali, ; O'Connor, Parcha, & Tulibaski, ). Second, we also address calls by researchers to consider the importance and relevance of “institutional nestedness and configurations in shaping nonmarket outcomes” such as SD (Jamali & Carroll, , p. 323; Hartmann & Uhlenbruck, ), by identifying commonalities and nuanced differences in institutional influences across countries in relation to SD (Brammer, Jackson, & Matten, ; Khan, Lew, & Park, ; Reimann, Ehrgott, Kaufmann, & Carter, ).…”