https://orcid.org/0009-0006-3020-062X
Figures
Abstract
Environmental issues have gradually become a key concern for society. The public has been paying increasing attention to corporate environmental disclosure and performance. With the “go global” trend, more and more enterprises are looking to overseas markets for new technologies and resources. Multinational enterprises (MNEs) are facing more challenges than domestic enterprises. To remain competitive and sustainable, enterprises from developing countries need to gain a foothold in developed countries. We explore how MNEs’ internationalization impacts environmental disclosure, specifically focusing on the role of green investors as stakeholders. We draw evidence from Chinese-listed MNEs, with a total of 4,709 panel data observations. For the main analysis, we use a fixed effect model. The findings suggest that a higher level of internationalization can improve both the willingness and quality of environmental disclosure for MNEs, and this relationship is further strengthened by green investors. A heterogeneity analysis reveals that the positive effect of internationalization on environmental disclosure is mainly present in state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and developed host countries. We find that external pressure from host countries motivates MNEs to increase environmental disclosure willingness and quality. This study provides valuable insights for MNEs from emerging economies on how to achieve legitimacy and a positive reputation in overseas markets through environmental disclosure strategies. This study proposes the importance of green investors on environmental disclosure issues from a stakeholder perspective and provides new theoretical insights for environmental policy reform in developing countries such as China.
Citation: He J, Yang S (2024) Does internationalization improve environmental disclosure willingness and quality? The moderating role of green investors. PLoS ONE 19(9): e0307638. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307638
Editor: João Zambujal-Oliveira, University of Madeira / NOVA Lincs, PORTUGAL
Received: January 12, 2024; Accepted: July 9, 2024; Published: September 11, 2024
Copyright: © 2024 He, Yang. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
1. Introduction
The following six Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set by the United Nations are closely related to the environment: clean water and sanitation, clean energy, sustainable consumption and production, climate action, sustainable development of ocean resources, and sustainable ecosystem development. As environmental issues are global, enterprises are the main actors in achieving these goals. The public has been paying increasing attention to corporate environmental disclosure and performance; enterprises are being pressured to disclose more information about the environmental impacts of their products and production [1]. In recent decades, MNEs have faced more challenges than domestic enterprises. With their liability of origin, MNEs face disadvantages in the host country because they operate outside their institutional context [2, 3]. Therefore, for long-term survival and development, MNEs should consider gaining legitimacy in foreign contexts [4]. Information disclosure enlightens host-country stakeholders about an enterprise’s products or services. Traditionally, financial information is the most essential information for an enterprise because it allows shareholders to determine whether profits are positive or negative. However, sustainable development should also be a key performance indicator. Environmental disclosure is a crucial aspect of sustainable development and a platform for enterprises to demonstrate corporate social responsibility (CSR).
Globalization has increased the number of MNEs, and state-owned MNEs play a significant role in their interests and national strategy. SOEs may be quicker executors of governments’ national industrial policies. To obtain legitimacy from the government, SOEs must contribute to national objectives [5, 6]. Given that the SDGs are global, state-owned MNEs are expected to substantially contribute to environmental disclosure.
Investors are important stakeholders of enterprises and greatly influence corporate management. Non-green investors primarily aim for economic benefits, whereas green investors focus on green and high-quality investment [7, 8]. Consequently, green investment is a combination of financial and environmental objectives [8, 9]. Enterprises with green investors are more likely to promote green action, increase green spending, and improve green governance.
Environmental disclosure embodies CSR. For corporate sustainability, CSR has become increasingly important [10, 11]. Literature on environmental disclosure mainly focuses on domestic market [12–15]. MNEs have become important part of the economy, but studies on environmental disclosure from international perspective are insufficient. Therefore, studying the effect of internationalization on environmental disclosure is crucial, especially in emerging economies, because the institutional systems of emerging markets are weaker than those of developed countries [16]. Additionally, it is more challenging for emerging economies to overcome the liability of origin disadvantages. Investors are important stakeholders of enterprises. Different from traditional investors, green investors focus on green and high-quality investment [7], inevitably exerting significant influence on environmental disclosure of enterprises. However, the literature has rarely examined the effect of green investor as a strategic investor from a stakeholder perspective.
This study contributes to the literature on several important aspects. First, it focuses on the influential factor of environmental disclosure from an international perspective, deepening firm environmental performance research in the domestic market. Second, it proposes refining the environmental disclosure into two aspects, namely, environmental disclosure willingness and quality.Third, given the increasing attention to environmental protection, this study emphasizes the important role of green investors in improving environmental disclosure willingness and quality from a stakeholder perspective.
2. Theoretical background and hypotheses development
2.1 Environmental disclosure
The literature has examined multiple aspects of environmental disclosure, which can be divided into the effect of environmental disclosure and the factors influencing it.
First, corporate environmental disclosure has multiple effects, such as a significant positive effect on environmental [12] and financial performance [17]. Numerous enterprises implement environmental disclosures as an environmental strategy in response to institutional pressure. Environmental disclosure and innovation improve energy efficiency and provide a competitive advantage in green markets. Enterprises in environmentally sensitive industries can increase their recognition and legitimacy by issuing CSR reports [13] because environmental disclosure is a CSR behavior. Environmental disclosure can also improve satisfaction with environmental governance.
Second, several internal and external factors influence corporate environmental disclosure. Internally, this includes administrative environmental innovations [18], the influence of boards [19, 20], and corporate governance structures [14]. Externally, enterprises have incentives to disclose environmental information to gain legitimacy [13].
2.2 Internationalization and environmental disclosure
MNEs face more challenges than domestic enterprises because they must reduce information asymmetry and increase legitimacy and recognition in overseas markets. They also face pressure from both the host and home countries. Operating overseas intensifies an enterprise’s institutional distance from its home country [21], reduces business information flow efficiency, and increases information asymmetry, leading to the liability of foreignness [22]. Stakeholders, including foreign governments, consumers, and investors [23], naturally pressurize MNEs because of their liability of origin. Despite the risks of disclosing information, including legal liability and exposure to the wrath of activists and stakeholders, recent studies have shown that international enterprises are willing to disclose environmental information to enhance their legitimacy [24, 25].
Unlike domestic enterprises, MNEs usually face institutional pressure in complex environments. For MNEs from emerging economies, their overseas production and operations face “disadvantage pressure” from the host country [26]. Therefore, their production and operations must exercise more caution, especially in terms of social responsibility and environmental protection. Given the improvements in their degree of internationalization, MNEs have become more dependent on overseas markets. The significance of environmental protection and disclosure requirements of stakeholders from host countries has increased, particularly that of image, legitimacy, and disclosure quality. A higher degree of internationalization means that more stakeholders are involved in supervising enterprise behavior [27], improving disclosure quality, promoting international cooperation, and instructing MNEs.
A study of UK firms using the FTSE 100 demonstrates that receiving environmental awards is positively related to environmental disclosure and helps MNEs enhance their legitimacy and brand reputation [24]. A higher level of internationalization involves more foreign stakeholders, reinforcing the risk of engaging in adverse situations [28] and offering enterprises more opportunities to access global norms and institutions [29]. Top-level MNEs excel in environmental disclosure, outperforming smaller MNEs and pursuing greater transparency.
Increasing environmental disclosure requires effort but is essential. When MNEs have higher levels of internationalization, they are more willing to enhance their legitimacy and reputation given the higher number of stakeholders, international norms, and legalization problems. Increasing environmental disclosure is a feasible, cost-effective method to enhance legitimacy and reputation in the host country. Thus, this study proposes the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Internationalization improves MNEs’ willingness to disclose environmental information.
Highly internationalized MNEs encounter more challenges in foreign markets [3] because of the differences in formal and informal institutions in foreign contexts [21] and their extensive presence in various countries or regions [28]. To achieve legitimacy in multiple countries, MNEs should consider the frequency and quality of environmental disclosure. Developed countries impose stricter legitimacy requirements than emerging economies [30]. Therefore, high-quality environmental disclosures can boost legitimacy in overseas markets by demonstrating a responsible corporate image [24]. Consequently, we posit the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Internationalization improves MNEs’ environmental disclosure quality.
2.3 Green investors
Previous studies on institutional investors have primarily focused on their impact on CSR [31–34]. Investors, driven by moral ethics, seek investments aligned with social goals, prioritizing values over personal gains [35]. Companies embracing sustainability and social responsibility address societal issues, bolstering their reputation and competitive edge, which benefits investors’ wealth [36]. Institutional investors belong to a particular group of financial institutions and include both green and non-green investors. The distinction lies in their primary goals of non-green investors prioritizing economic benefits and green investors focusing on green and high-quality investment [7].
Investors are essential stakeholders in enterprises and affect corporate governance. The traditional management concept often puts shareholders first, but according to the stakeholder theory [37], executives must balance all stakeholders’ rights and interests without focusing only on shareholders. Unlike traditional investors, green investors emphasize social responsibility investments [38] and have dual financial and environmental objectives [8, 9]. Accordingly, green investors that focus on environmental responsibility goals often achieve higher financial performance [39]. Enterprises with green investors are more likely to implement green actions, increase green spending, and improve their green governance performance. Further research shows that the promotional effect of green investors on green action is more evident in enterprises with weak environmental awareness. Specifically, green investors have promoted the reform of heavily polluting enterprises [40] by encouraging them to increase environmental investments, implement green actions, and improve environmental governance. Therefore, green actions and governance performance contribute to overall corporate performance.
Enterprises with green investors can signal their willingness to participate in green governance [41] and guarantee the smooth implementation of enterprises’ participation in green governance. This can prevent pollution penalties, help gain external recognition, and enhance green governance performance to some extent. Green investors aim for sustainable investments [42] and consider economic, social, environmental, and other factors. They encourage enterprises to pursue economic benefits while actively undertaking social responsibilities to obtain economic and social value [43]. Green investors encourage enterprises to participate in green governance, for which environmental disclosure is integral. Strong green governance in an enterprise fosters a positive public image and showcases a commitment to CSR. Unlike other stakeholders, investors control financial capital, which determines an enterprise’s development direction. Green investors prioritize environmental performance, and demand increased disclosure from enterprises to assess it. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Green investors strengthen the positive relationship between internationalization and environmental disclosure.
2.4 Heterogeneous effects
2.4.1 MNEs with different ownership structures.
SOEs are an organic part of national finance. Their social responsibility is an effective means for the state to participate in and intervene in the economy on behalf of the public interest [5]. SOEs’ social responsibility includes both economic and non-economic objectives. Social responsibility emphasizes non-economic goals, with economic goals helping to achieve non-economic goals. SOEs play an essential role in economic activities and may be the quickest government executors, corresponding to national industrial policies. Thus, SOEs contribute to national objectives [6].
Executives, especially those of SOEs, struggle to achieve the goals of “peak carbon dioxide emissions” and “carbon neutrality” proposed by governments worldwide [44]. Their remuneration and promotion as SOE executives primarily depend on successfully achieving these goals [45], of which environmental disclosure is an integral part. Therefore, SOE executives tend to be motivated to improve their environmental disclosure activities. Subject to governmental pressure, SOEs have more incentives to enhance their environmental disclosure willingness and quality than non-SOEs. Given that SOEs embody governmental authority, enhanced environmental disclosures can be strategic moves to secure legitimacy and reputation. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4a: Internationalization has a more pronounced positive effect on environmental disclosure for SOEs.
2.4.2 Host countries with different development levels.
MNEs operating in developed countries face more pressure compared to those in developing countries. The external pressure theory [2, 46] suggests that enterprises are compelled to disclose environmental information because of external pressure. The legitimacy requirement in developed countries is stricter than in developing countries. Stakeholders such as foreign governments, consumers, and investors [23] exert pressure on MNEs because of their origin. Moreover, stakeholders in developed countries have greater environmental awareness, and enterprises there possess better environmental management skills. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
- Hypothesis 4b: The positive effect of internationalization on environmental disclosure primarily occurs in developed host countries.
The logic graph of this study is shown in Fig 1.
3. Variables, data, and methodology
3.1 Data
The sample includes publicly listed multinational companies on the Chinese domestic stock market from 2014 to 2021. Data on environmental disclosure, Chinese overseas subsidiaries, foreign sales, and green investors were obtained from China Stock Market and Accounting Research (CSMAR). The developed country list was obtained from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
The following observations were excluded from the sample: (1) firms from “tax havens,” (2) Special Treatment (ST) firms, (3) financial enterprises, and (4) missing values and abnormal data. Additionally, all continuous variables were winsorized at the first and 99th percentiles. Next, we merged the data according to the year and firm stock codes. Finally, we obtained a dataset of 4,709 firm-year observations from 2014 to 2021.
3.2 Variables
3.2.1 Dependent variables.
Willingness. This was measured in three dimensions (disclosure of environmental management, disclosure of environmental supervision and certification, and environmental disclosure carrier) with 18 sub-indicators. Each sub-indicator was constructed as a dummy variable, taking a value of one if the enterprises had disclosed related information in their environmental report and zero otherwise [47]. Next, we constructed an indicator to measure willingness for environmental disclosure by summing all 18 sub-indicators. The final total score (hundred-mark) was used to measure the willingness to engage in environmental disclosure, namely “Willingness = number of disclosure items/18*100.” S1 Appendix provides detailed information on sub-indicators.
Quality. We used the disclosure index of environmental information (EID), which is often used in environmental disclosure research [47]. We used two dimensions (environmental liability and environmental disclosure performance and governance) with 12 sub-indicators using qualitative or quantitative data. The score of the sub-indicator was zero if the enterprise did not disclose related information, one if the enterprise only qualitatively disclosed, and two if the enterprise quantitatively disclosed. Thus, if an enterprise quantitatively disclosed all 12 sub-indicators, its total score was 24. Subsequently, we added all 12 sub-indicators and the final total score (hundred mark) was used to measure the quality of environmental disclosure, namely “Quality = disclosure score/24*100.” S1 Appendix provides information on sub-indicators.
3.2.2 Independent variable.
Internationalization (FSALE). We employed the ratio of overseas sales to total sales to measure internationalization level [47].
3.2.3 Moderating variables.
Green investors (GI). The original data were obtained from the CSMAR. We matched fund information data with stock investment data to obtain detailed data on funds in listed enterprises. Next, we used the content analysis method to verify whether the investment goal and investment scope contained environment-related keywords, including “environmental protection,” “ecological,” “green,” “new energy development,” “clean energy,” “low carbon,” “sustainable,” and “energy saving.” If the investment goal and scope contained these keywords, we considered them green investors [48]. Finally, we calculated enterprises’ number of green investors as GI = ln (number of green investors + 1).
3.2.4 Control variables.
We used firm size (Size), profitability (ROA), market value (TobinQ), CEO duality (Dual), board size (Board), and board independence (Indep) as control variables. Firm size is widely used in the literature on firms’ environmental behavior [47]. We measured firm size using the natural logarithm of fixed assets. Higher profitability implies more resources to support better corporate environmental performance. We used return on assets (ROA) to measure it [49]. Market value is an investor’s assessment of the value of an enterprise and an aspect of corporate financial performance. We used Tobin’s Q to measure an enterprise’s market value [50]. CEO duality is a dummy variable that takes a value of one when the CEO is also the chairman of the board, and zero otherwise. Some studies show that the CEO also being the chairman of the board decreases benefits to shareholders, supervision power, and corporate information transparency [19]. We measured the board size based on the number of directors. Board size influences corporate governance. A large board suffers from poor coordination, increases the complexity of decision-making [51], and may influence an enterprise’s environmental disclosure decisions. We defined board = ln (number of directors + 1). We measured board independence using the ratio of independent directors to the entire board. High board independence minimizes agency problems and limits managerial problems [52, 53].
3.2.5 Summary statistics.
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for the variables used in our regression analysis. Table 2 presents the correlation matrices for these variables. The correlations between variables are relatively low, indicating no major multicollinearity problems.
3.3 Methods
Considering that the data have a panel structure and that the dependent variables (willingness and quality) are continuous, we used a panel data-related model. First, we used the Hausman test to analyze whether the fixed or random effects models were suitable [54]. The test results support the use of the fixed effect model, which is a typical method for panel data analysis. To minimize the impact of missing variable bias, we selected a dual fixed effect model to analyze the data, control firm, and year. The models are shown in Eqs (1) and (2):
(1)
(2)
Subscripts i and t denote firm and year, respectively. Willingness is environmental disclosure willingness and Quality is environmental disclosure quality. X is a vector representing the control variables. Firm (γi) and year (ωt) fixed effects are included in the model.
4. Empirical analysis
4.1 Overall and multi-dimensional regression
Table 3 presents results for the effect of internationalization on environmental disclosure willingness. Column (1) displays the results for the model with the key independent variable. Column (2) displays results of introducing control variables. The coefficients of FSALE are significantly positive shown in Column (2), verifying that internationalization positively affects environmental disclosure willingness. To deepen our analysis, we divide environmental disclosure willingness into the following three dimensions: (a) environmental management, (b) environmental supervision and certification, and (c) environmental disclosure carriers. The regression results for the three dimensions are also listed in Table 3. The coefficients of FSALE in Columns (3) and (4) are significantly positive at 5% and 1% levels. Only the coefficient of FSALE on supervision and certification dimension is insignificant as shown in Column (5).
A higher level of internationalization requires deeper integration into the host country and generates stronger incentives for MNEs to reinforce environmental disclosure. External pressure [46] from the host country pushes MNEs to improve environmental disclosure to gain legitimacy, reduce information asymmetry, and overcome the liability of foreignness [2]. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is verified.
Table 4 presents the results for the effect of internationalization on environmental disclosure quality. Column (1) displays the results of the model with the key independent variable. Column (2) displays the results of introducing control variables. The coefficients of FSALE are significantly positive, as shown in Columns (1) and (2), verifying that internationalization positively affects environmental disclosure quality. We also examine the relationship between internationalization and the two detailed dimensions (disclosure of environmental liability and disclosure of environmental performance and governance) of environmental disclosure quality. Table 4 presents the results. The coefficient of FSALE is significantly positive at the 5% level for the performance and governance dimension, as shown in Column (4).
The environmental disclosure by enterprises primarily results from external pressure [2, 46], which can be divided into the following two categories: pressure from the government for legitimacy and pressure from the public. The former is exerted through the implementation of laws and regulations, representing direct pressure. The latter manifests as public opinion and market behavior, representing indirect pressure. According to the interpretation of external pressure theory [46], external stakeholders care about the environmental behavior of MNEs and prioritize the quality of this behavior, supporting Hypothesis 2.
4.2 Moderating effect of green investors
Table 5 presents results for the moderating effect of green investors on the relationship between internationalization and environmental disclosure willingness and quality. The coefficients of the interaction term between green investors and internationalization are significantly positive at the 1% level for the overall effect, as shown in Columns (1) and (5); this demonstrates that green investors strengthen the positive effect of internationalization on environmental disclosure willingness and quality.
According to stakeholder theory [37], executives of enterprises must balance the interests of all stakeholders, not just shareholders. Investors are important stakeholders of enterprises. Compared with traditional investors, green investors focus more on green and high-quality investment [7]. Green investors assign importance to green development [8], which exerts pressure on enterprises to improve environmental disclosure performance. Green investors have both financial and environmental objectives [8, 9]. Enterprises with green investors are more likely to take green actions. The mechanism of the positive moderating effect of green investors has two aspects. First, investors are important stakeholders of enterprises and greatly influence the overseas development strategy of MNEs. Green investors focus on green and high-quality development [7], pushing MNEs to focus on environmental performance in overseas markets. Environmental disclosure is an important aspect of environmental performance. Thus, green investors push MNEs to perform well on environmental disclosure. Second, green investors can relieve the financial constraints [55] and require MNEs to increase environmental expenditure. This is beneficial for MNEs to improve environmental performance. When a MNE has a better environmental performance, it is more willing to disclosure environmental information [12]. Therefore, green investors enhance the positive effect of internationalization on environmental disclosure, supporting Hypothesis 3.
We demonstrate the moderating effect using the values one standard deviation above and below the mean to represent high and low levels of the moderating variables [3, 56]. The moderating effect of green investors on the relationship between internationalization and environmental disclosure willingness is shown in Fig 2. The moderating effect of green investors on the relationship between internationalization and environmental disclosure quality is shown in Fig 3.
Fig 2 shows that the slope becomes steeper when both Willingness and FSALE are high. This indicates that as FSALE increases from one standard deviation below the mean to one above, Willingness shows a faster increase when GI is higher. In Fig 3, the slope is also steeper when both Quality and FSALE are high. This indicates that as FSALE increases from one standard deviation below the mean to one above, Quality demonstrates a faster increase when GI is higher.
4.3 Heterogeneity analysis
4.3.1 SOEs and non-SOEs.
We construct a dummy variable (SOE) to divide the MNEs into state-owned and non-state-owned. The dummy variable takes the value of one if the enterprise is state-owned; otherwise, it takes zero. Table 6 shows the results. The coefficients of FSALE and the interaction term are significantly positive at the 1% level. Next, we use the Chow test to verify whether there is a coefficient difference between groups. The result indicates that there is difference between groups. The positive effect of internationalization on environmental disclosure is stronger for SOEs (Columns (1) and (2): β = 15.19>9.142, p < .01; Columns (3) and (4): β = 21.33>11.26, p < .01).
SOEs aim to achieve economic and national goals [5, 6], and green development is currently a global and national objective. Executives, especially those of SOEs, face challenges in meeting the “peak carbon dioxide emissions” and “carbon neutrality” goals set by governments worldwide [44]. Furthermore, the remuneration and promotion of SOE executives largely rely on successfully achieving these goals [45]. Therefore, SOEs tend to enhance their environmental disclosure activities, supporting Hypothesis 4a.
4.3.2 Developed and developing host countries.
We categorize the host countries as either developed or developing countries. Table 7 shows the empirical results. The impact of internationalization on both the willingness and quality of environmental disclosure, as well as the moderating effect of green investors, is significant in developed host countries (Column (1) and Column (3)). Conversely, the results are insignificant in developing host countries (Column (2) and Column (4)).
Developed countries have more stringent legitimacy requirements compared to developing countries. Stakeholders, such as foreign governments, consumers, and investors [23], naturally exert pressure on MNEs because of their liability of origin. The environmental awareness of stakeholders from developed countries also surpasses that of developing ones. Consequently, the positive effect of internationalization on environmental disclosure, along with the moderating effect of green investors, is primarily associated with developed host countries. Thus, Hypothesis 4b is supported.
4.4 Endogeneity
One primary concern is the potential endogeneity due to reverse causality and omitted variable bias. To address the potential endogeneity issue, we introduce an instrumental variable. Following literature addressing endogeneity in similar situations, the industrial average of internationalization level is utilized as the instrumental variable [57, 58]. If the endogeneity is firm-specific but not industry-specific, netting out this firm-specific component yields a measure that depends only on the underlying characteristics of a particular industry [57]. The results are shown in Table 8. In the first stage, we find that the instrumental variable is effective, as demonstrated by the F-value of 149.99 (which exceeds the threshold of 10). In the second stage, the regression results are consistent with the baseline findings.
4.5 Robustness test
To enhance the reliability of the empirical findings, we perform a robustness test. This includes employing a lagged structure for all independent variables, a Tobit model, and an alternative independent variable to ensure the consistency of the results. Table 9 shows the robustness test results.
4.5.1 Lagged structure for independent variables.
One primary concern is that FSALE may be endogenous because of a reverse causality problem, meaning that firms with high environmental disclosure performance have a high degree of internationalization. The problem of two-way causality can be weakened by using lagged independent variables [4, 57]. The current dependent variable does not influence the lagged independent variable. The empirical results are shown in Table 9. The coefficients of the lagged key independent variable l.FSALE and the interaction term are significantly positive at the 1% level, as shown in Columns (1) and (2). The results are consistent with those of the baseline model.
4.5.2 Replacement with a new estimation method.
The dependent variable (willingness, quality) is an enterprise’s environmental disclosure willingness or quality score; if an enterprise does not disclose any environmental item, the score is zero A silent non-disclosure enterprise is also an option in a partial disclosure equilibrium setting [59]. Hence, the Tobit model is suitable [60], and we use it for re-estimation; its general form is given in the following Eq (3):
(3)
Here, is the unobserved variable, yit is the observed variable,
is the explanatory variable vector, and εit is the random disturbance term. The empirical results are shown in Table 9. The coefficients of the key independent variable FSALE and the interaction term are significantly positive at the 1% level, as shown in Columns (3) and (4). The results are consistent with those of the baseline model.
4.5.3 Alternative independent variable.
To ensure the reliability of our results, we substitute the independent variable FSALE with FCNT (number of foreign countries that MNEs invest in overseas markets) [61], defining FCNT = ln (number of foreign countries investing overseas + 1). Table 9 presents the empirical results. The coefficients of the key independent variable FCNT and the interaction term are significantly positive at the 5% and 1% levels, as shown in Columns (5) and (6). The results are consistent with those of the baseline model.
5. Conclusion and discussion
5.1 Conclusion
This study concludes that a higher level of internationalization can improve MNEs’ willingness and quality of environmental disclosure, and green investors strengthen this positive relationship. Heterogeneity analysis shows that the positive relationship is primarily associated with SOEs and developed host countries. Higher level of internationalization requires deeper integration into the host country and generates stronger incentive for MNEs to reinforce environmental disclosure. External pressure [46] from the host country pushes MNEs to improve environmental disclosure for gaining legitimacy, reducing information asymmetry and overcoming the liability of foreignness [2]. Green investors are important stakeholders of enterprises. Compared to traditional investors, green investors focus more on green and high-quality investment [7], contributing to relieving financial constraints of MNEs [55] and pushing them to improve environmental disclosure performance.
5.2 Implications
Our study contributes to the literature in several aspects. First, it introduces “environmental disclosure willingness” and “environmental disclosure quality”, refining traditional environmental disclosure research [12–15, 18]. Second, our study explores environmental disclosure from an international perspective, expanding on the existing domestic perspective [19, 41]. Third, considering the increasing attention to environmental issues, our study focuses on the important role of green investors, deepening traditional investor research [9, 38].
Our study offers some recommendations for MNEs, especially those from emerging economies. First, it points to the importance of utilizing environmental disclosure to achieve legitimacy in international contexts. Executives should attach importance to environmental disclosure when MNEs enter overseas markets. Second, it proposes the importance of green investors given the increasing attention to environmental protection. MNEs are recommended to introduce green investors for improving environmental performance. Third, it provides theoretical insights for environmental policy reform. With the implementation of green finance, green investors are playing a more important role in environmental disclosure. Policy makers should formulate more specific policies that encourage enterprises to welcome green investors, who guide corporate environmental behavior as emerging strategic investors.
5.3 Limitations and scope for future research
While we have examined the link between internationalization and environmental disclosure, our analysis is subject to some limitations. First, we subdivide environmental disclosure willingness into three dimensions and environmental disclosure quality into two dimensions. While the overall empirical result and moderating effects are significant, not all detailed dimensions show significant results. Further research is needed to find out the underlying reason. Second, our study considers only the moderating role of green investors. Stakeholders play an important role in corporate environmental management. Further research should introduce other stakeholders to enrich the research results.
References
- 1. Jira C, Toffel MW. Engaging supply chains in climate change. M&SOM. 2013;15: 559–577.
- 2. Czinkota M, Kaufmann HR, Basile G. The relationship between legitimacy, reputation, sustainability and branding for companies and their supply chains. Ind Mark Manag. 2014;43: 91–101.
- 3. Hitt MA. International strategy and institutional environments. Cross Cult Strateg M. 2016;23.
- 4. Scherer AG, Palazzo G, Seidl D. Managing legitimacy in complex and heterogeneous environments: Sustainable development in a globalized world. J Manag Stud. 2013;50: 259–284.
- 5. Choudhury P, Khanna T. Toward resource independence–Why state-owned entities become multinationals: An empirical study of India’s public R&D laboratories. J Int Bus Stud. 2014;45: 943–960,
- 6. Yang N, Wang J, Liu X, Huang L. Home-country institutions and corporate social responsibility of emerging economy multinational enterprises: The belt and road initiative as an example. Asia Pac J Manag. 2022;39: 927–965.
- 7. Chung H, Lee H-H, Tsai P-C. Are green fund investors really socially responsible? Rev Pac Basin Financ Markets Pol. 2012;15: 1250023.
- 8. Yan S, Almandoz J, Ferraro F. The impact of logic (in)compatibility: Green investing, state policy, and corporate environmental performance. Admin Sci Q. 2021;66: 903–944.
- 9. Eyraud L, Clements B, Wane A. Green investment: Trends and determinants. Energ Policy. 2013;60: 852–865.
- 10.
Chen P, Dagestani AA,Kim S. Corporate social responsibility and green exploratory innovation—The moderating role of three environmental regulations. Technol Anal Strateg Manag: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2023.2196585
- 11. Chen P, Dagestani AA. What lies about circular economy practices and performance? Fresh insights from China. J Clean Prod. 2023;416: 137893.
- 12. Clarkson PM, Li Y, Richardson GD, Vasvari FP. Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Acc Org Soc. 2008;33: 303–327.
- 13. Kuo L, Yi-Ju Chen V. Is environmental disclosure an effective strategy on establishment of environmental legitimacy for organization? Manag Decis. 2013;51: 1462–1487.
- 14. Gerged AM. Factors affecting corporate environmental disclosure in emerging markets: The role of corporate governance structures. Bus Strat Env. 2021;30: 609–629.
- 15. Hu K, Hao Y, Yu D. Intra-industry peer effect in corporate environmental information disclosure: Evidence from China. PLOS ONE. 2022;17: e0274787. pmid:36137102
- 16. Marquis C, Raynard M. Institutional strategies in emerging markets. Acad Manag Ann. 2015;9: 291–335.
- 17. Qiu Y, Shaukat A, Tharyan R. Environmental and social disclosures: Link with corporate financial performance. Brit Acc Rev. 2016;48: 102–116.
- 18. Bellamy MA, Dhanorkar S, Subramanian R. Administrative environmental innovations, supply network structure, and environmental disclosure. J Oper Manag. 2020;66: 895–932.
- 19. Fernandes SM, Bornia AC, Nakamura LR. The influence of boards of directors on environmental disclosure. Manag Decis. 2019;57: 2358–2382.
- 20. Chen P, Hao Y. Digital transformation and corporate environmental performance: The moderating role of board characteristics. Corp Soc Resp Env Ma. 2022;29: 1757–1767.
- 21. Xu D, Shenkar O. Note: Institutional distance and the multinational enterprise. Acad Manag Rev. 2002;27: 608–618.
- 22. Asmussen CG, Goerzen A. Unpacking dimensions of foreignness: Firm-specific capabilities and international dispersion in regional, cultural, and institutional space. Glob Strateg J. 2013;3: 127–149.
- 23. Carroll AB. Managing ethically with global stakeholders: A present and future challenge. Acad Manag Perspect. 2004;18: 114–120.
- 24. Hassan A, Ibrahim E. Corporate environmental information disclosure: Factors influencing companies’ success in attaining environmental awards. Corp Soc Resp Env Ma. 2012;19: 32–46.
- 25. Kolk A, Fortanier F. Internationalization and environmental disclosure: The role of home and host institutions. Multinatl Bus Rev. 2013;21: 87–114.
- 26. Cuervo-Cazurra A, Genc M. Transforming disadvantages into advantages: Developing-country MNEs in the least developed countries. J Int Bus Stud. 2008;39: 957–979.
- 27. González-Benito J, González-Benito Ó. A study of determinant factors of stakeholder environmental pressure perceived by industrial companies. Bus Strat Env. 2010;19: 164–181.
- 28. Marano V, Tashman P, Kostova T. Escaping the iron cage: Liabilities of origin and CSR reporting of emerging market multinational enterprises. J Int Bus Stud. 2017;48: 386–408.
- 29. Marano V, Tashman P. MNE/NGO partnerships and the legitimacy of the firm. Int Bus Rev. 2012;21: 1122–1130.
- 30. Pant A, Ramachandran J. Legitimacy beyond borders: Indian software services firms in the United States, 1984 to 2004. Glob Strateg J. 2012;2: 224–243.
- 31. Kim H-D, Kim T, Kim Y, Park K. Do long-term institutional investors promote corporate social responsibility activities? J Bank Financ. 2019;101: 256–269.
- 32. García-Meca E, Pucheta-Martínez MC. How institutional investors on boards impact on stakeholder engagement and corporate social responsibility reporting. Corp Soc Resp Env Ma. 2018;25: 237–249.
- 33. Ahmed SU, Islam Z, Mahtab H, Hasan I. Institutional investment and corporate social performance: Linkage towards sustainable development. Corp Soc Resp Env Ma. 2014;21: 1–13.
- 34. Nofsinger JR, Sulaeman J, Varma A. Institutional investors and corporate social responsibility. J Corp Finan. 2019;58: 700–725.
- 35. Lewis A, Mackenzie C. Support for investor activism among U.K. ethical investors. J Bus Ethics. 2000;24: 215–222.
- 36. Petersen HL, Vredenburg H. Morals or economics? Institutional investor preferences for corporate social responsibility. J Bus Ethics. 2009;90: 1–14.
- 37. Parmar BL, Freeman RE, Harrison JS, Wicks AC, Purnell L, de Colle S. Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Acad Manag Ann. 2010;4: 403–445.
- 38. Benlemlih M, Bitar M. Corporate social responsibility and investment efficiency. J Bus Ethics. 2018;148: 647–671.
- 39. Ng A, Zheng D. Let’s agree to disagree! On payoffs and green tastes in green energy investments. Energ Econ. 2018;69: 155–169.
- 40. Heinkel R, Kraus A, Zechner J. The effect of green investment on corporate behavior. J Financ Quant Anal. 2001;36: 431–449.
- 41. Post C, Rahman N, Rubow E. Green governance: Boards of Directors’ composition and environmental corporate social responsibility. Bus Soc. 2011;50: 189–223.
- 42. Jansson M, Biel A. Motives to engage in sustainable investment: A comparison between institutional and private investors. Sustain Dev. 2011;19: 135–142.
- 43. Barnea A, Heinkel R, Kraus A. Green investors and corporate investment. Struct Change Econ D. 2005;16: 332–346.
- 44. Becker S, Bouzdine-Chameeva T, Jaegler A. The carbon neutrality principle: A case study in the French spirits sector. J Clean Prod. 2020;274: 122739. pmid:32834566
- 45. Wang C, Hong J, Kafouros M, Boateng A. What drives outward FDI of Chinese firms? Testing the explanatory power of three theoretical frameworks. Int Bus Rev. 2012;21: 425–438.
- 46. Adebanjo D, Teh P-L, Ahmed PK. The impact of external pressure and sustainable management practices on manufacturing performance and environmental outcomes. Int J Oper Prod Manag. 2016;36: 995–1013.
- 47. Ellimäki P, Gómez-Bolaños E, Hurtado-Torres N, Aragón-Correa JA. Do global firms increase their environmental disclosure and performance? Symbolic versus effective operations and the moderating role of liability of origin. Legitimation implications. Ind Mark Manag. 2021;92: 354–363.
- 48. Wang H, Lin WF, Xie R. Executive environmental background and green investor entry. J Quant Tec Econ. 2022;12: 173–194.
- 49. Gallego-Alvarez I, Ortas E, Vicente-Villardón JL, Álvarez Etxeberria I. Institutional constraints, stakeholder pressure and corporate environmental reporting policies. Bus Strat Env. 2017;26: 807–825.
- 50. Xia D, Wang X-Q. The synergetic impact of environmental and innovation information disclosure on corporate financial performance: An empirical study based on China coal listed companies. Technovation. 2021;100: 102179.
- 51. De Andres P, Azofra V, Lopez F. Corporate Boards in OECD Countries: Size, composition, functioning and effectiveness. Corp Gov-Oxf. 2005;13: 197–210.
- 52. Gyimah D, Kwansa NA, Kyiu AK, Sikochi A. Multinationality and capital structure dynamics: A corporate governance explanation. Int Rev Financ Anal. 2021;76: 101758.
- 53. Kieschnick R, Moussawi R. Firm age, corporate governance, and capital structure choices. J Corp Finan. 2018;48: 597–614.
- 54. Hausman JA. Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica. 1978;46: 1251–1271.
- 55. Feng J, Yuan Y. Green investors and corporate ESG performance: Evidence from China. Fin Res Lett. 2024;60: 104892.
- 56.
Aiken L, West S, Reno R. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, California: SAGE Publications; 1991.
- 57. Shi X, Zeng Y, Wu Y, Wang S. Outward foreign direct investment and green innovation in Chinese multinational companies. Int Bus Rev. 2023;32: 102160.
- 58. Cui X, Wang C, Liao J, Fang Z, Cheng F. Economic policy uncertainty exposure and corporate innovation investment: Evidence from China. Pacific-Basin Fin J. 2021;67: 101533.
- 59. Acar M, Temiz H. Empirical analysis on corporate environmental performance and environmental disclosure in an emerging market context. IJOEM. 2020;15: 1061–1082.
- 60. Li H. Digital inclusive finance, agricultural green technology innovation and agricultural carbon emissions: Impact mechanism and empirical test. PLOS ONE. 2023;18: e0288072. pmid:37883510
- 61. Fan JT, Liu Y. Differences in the relationship between internationalization degree and performance of Chinese and foreign enterprises-empirical evidence from top 500 companies. J Manag Sci China. 2018;21: 110–126. CNKI. Sun:JCYJ.0.2018-06-009.