Scholarlink

<p>This paper examines the institutional drivers that influence environmental accounting (EA) practices in Saudi Arabia (SA) and the diverse responses of organisations to existing institutional pressures. The researchers conducted 20 semi-structured interviews with respondents from nine organisations across three sectors: (i) public-sector institutions, (ii) petrochemical, chemical, and food manufacturing companies, and (iii) audit firms. The results highlighted two main themes. First, the external drivers of EA in this context are coercive, normative, and mimetic. Second, management mentality is the principal internal driver of EA in this context. Three mutually exclusive responses to existing institutional pressures emerged from the data: (i) conform to regulations, (ii) exceed national legislation by adopting global voluntary reporting frameworks (or develop internal reporting frameworks inspired by international guidelines), or (iii) develop an interdisciplinary approach comprising EA, engineering, and environmental science. The paper contributes to the EA literature in three ways. First, it reveals how institutional forces shape EA practices among public- and private-sector organisations. Second, it highlights the role of professionalism in institutional adaptation by revealing how actors balance institutional demands and organisational practices. Finally, it elucidates institutional complexity by illustrating how public- and private-sector organisations in SA mitigate their respective conflicting EA demands.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Institutional drivers of environmental accounting and responses of organizations

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月15日

查看全文
  • Arwa A. Almeflh,
  • Mohamed I. Almofleh

摘要

This paper examines the institutional drivers that influence environmental accounting (EA) practices in Saudi Arabia (SA) and the diverse responses of organisations to existing institutional pressures. The researchers conducted 20 semi-structured interviews with respondents from nine organisations across three sectors: (i) public-sector institutions, (ii) petrochemical, chemical, and food manufacturing companies, and (iii) audit firms. The results highlighted two main themes. First, the external drivers of EA in this context are coercive, normative, and mimetic. Second, management mentality is the principal internal driver of EA in this context. Three mutually exclusive responses to existing institutional pressures emerged from the data: (i) conform to regulations, (ii) exceed national legislation by adopting global voluntary reporting frameworks (or develop internal reporting frameworks inspired by international guidelines), or (iii) develop an interdisciplinary approach comprising EA, engineering, and environmental science. The paper contributes to the EA literature in three ways. First, it reveals how institutional forces shape EA practices among public- and private-sector organisations. Second, it highlights the role of professionalism in institutional adaptation by revealing how actors balance institutional demands and organisational practices. Finally, it elucidates institutional complexity by illustrating how public- and private-sector organisations in SA mitigate their respective conflicting EA demands.