Accelerating biodiversity loss poses significant sustainability risks, particularly in emerging economies where industrial expansion threatens fragile ecosystems. Despite increasing stakeholder attention, limited empirical evidence explains how firms strategically respond to biodiversity-related pressures. This study investigates the influence of stakeholder pressure on corporate biodiversity engagement and examines the mediating role of biodiversity-oriented marketing strategy. Survey data from 223 senior managers of listed companies in Bangladesh were analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling. Results show that stakeholder pressure significantly enhances biodiversity-oriented marketing strategy and corporate biodiversity engagement. Mediation analysis confirms that marketing strategy partially mediates the relationship between stakeholder pressure and biodiversity engagement, with both direct and indirect effects statistically significant. These findings highlight marketing strategy as a critical organizational mechanism for translating external expectations into sustained biodiversity practices. The study contributes to stakeholder theory and sustainability marketing literature by clarifying strategic pathways through which firms embed biodiversity into core decision-making. For managers and policymakers in developing economies, the results underscore the importance of stakeholder-driven governance and strategic alignment in advancing corporate biodiversity responsibility.
HambaliAAdharianiD. Corporate biodiversity disclosure: the role of institutional factors and corporate governance. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag2024; 31(6): 5260–5274. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2865
2.
MairLElnahassMXiangE, et al.Corporate disclosures need a biodiversity outcome focus and regulatory backing to deliver global conservation goals. Conserv Lett2024; 17(4): e13024. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.13024
3.
IslamTHalimMA. Impact of ready-made garments (RMG) industries and sustainability: perspective of the pandemic period in developing country. Clean Eng Technol2022; 11: 100567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2022.100567
4.
AnatholeULimeiCHamzaF. Navigating corporate greenwashing in the carbon era: synergizing internal carbon pricing, ESG governance, and regulatory stringency to advance environmental integrity. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag2025; 33: 1794–1814. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.70256
5.
BhutaniBJainS. Navigating three decades: corporate social responsibility, sustainability, and risk. J Bus Strat2025; 46(5-6): 142–168. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBS-11-2024-0234
6.
WaheedAZhangQ. Effect of CSR and ethical practices on sustainable competitive performance: a case of emerging markets from stakeholder theory perspective. J Bus Ethics2022; 175(4): 837–855. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04679-y
7.
IslamMTKokubuKNishitaniK. Corporate social reporting in the banking industry of Bangladesh: a test of legitimacy theory. Soc Responsib J2021; 17(2): 198–225. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-05-2019-0185
8.
AslamWJawaidST. Green banking adoption practices: improving environmental, financial, and operational performance. Int J Ethics Syst2023; 39(4): 820–840. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-06-2022-0125
9.
KeckelLFeuerYSLSassenR. Identifying motivations, measures and challenges to implement corporate biodiversity management and reporting: a systematic review across sectors and regions. J Environ Manag2025; 389: 125987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.125987
10.
TreepongkarunaS. Corporate sustainability and biodiversity reporting: a proactive business strategy to mitigate litigation and reputational risks. Bus Strat Environ2024; 33(7): 6640–6651. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3840
11.
MarounWEcimD. Biodiversity reporting by United Kingdom (UK)‐listed companies: a review of extent, content and readability of disclosures. Bus Strat Environ2024; 33(8): 7800–7824. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3866
12.
ZengHBenkraiemRAbedinMZ, et al.Transitioning to sustainability: dynamic spillovers between sustainability indices and Chinese stock market. Eur Financ Manag2025; 31: 1742–1770. https://doi.org/10.1111/eufm.12560
SunGSulemanaIAgyemangAO. Examining the impact of stakeholders’ pressures on sustainability practices. Manag Decis. 2025; 63(11): 3967–3995. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-06-2023-1008
15.
WuRZengHAbedinMZ, et al.The impact of extreme climate on tourism sector international stock markets: a quantile and time-frequency perspective. Tour Econ2025; 31: 13548166241311633. https://doi.org/10.1177/13548166241311633
16.
ChowdhuryEK. Examining the benefits and drawbacks of social media usage on academic performance: a study among university students in Bangladesh. J Res Innov Teach Learn2024; 18(2): 395–411. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-07-2023-0097
17.
DuttaPDuttaA. Does corporate environmental performance affect corporate biodiversity reporting decision? The Finnish evidence. J Appl Account Res2024; 25(1): 24–41. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-06-2022-0148
18.
AlamABannaHRoniNN, et al.Sowing sustainability: how does fintech mitigate agricultural financial risk from climate change vulnerability. Int Rev Econ Finance2025; 101: 104226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2025.104226
19.
ChowdhuryEK. Cultural norms and their effect on entrepreneurial endeavors: perspectives from Bangladesh. J Dev Enterpren2024a; 29(1): 2450007. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1084946724500079
20.
SharmaSHenriquesI. Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest products industry. Strateg Manag J2005; 26(2): 159–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.439
21.
ChenCH. Eco-labels marketing performance in Asian firms: shared vision, integration capability and team collaboration perspectives. J Asia Bus Stud2021; 15(5): 710–731. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-12-2019-0355
22.
PimentelPCBassi-SuterMDidonetSR. Brand activism as a marketing strategy: an integrative framework and research agenda. J Brand Manag2024; 31(2): 212–234. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-023-00335-8
23.
YusifSHafeez-BaigA. Impact of stakeholder engagement strategies on managerial cognitive decision-making: the context of CSP and CSR. Soc Responsib J2024; 20(6): 1101–1121. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-05-2023-0295
AgyemangAOOseiAKongkuahM. Exploring the ESG‐circular economy nexus in emerging markets: a systems perspective on governance, innovation, and sustainable business models. Bus Strat Environ2025; 34: 5901–5924. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.4278
26.
RobertsLElamerAA. Country-level drivers of biodiversity disclosures: international evidence and policy implications. In: Accounting forum. Routledge, 2025, pp. 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/01559982.2025.2468992
27.
SunHZhongY. Carbon emission reduction and green marketing decisions in a two-echelon low-carbon supply chain considering fairness concern. J Bus Ind Market2023; 38(4): 905–929. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-02-2021-0090
28.
KratschmannMDütschkeE. Selling the sun: a critical review of the sustainability of solar energy marketing and advertising in Germany. Energy Res Social Sci2021; 73: 101919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.101919
29.
SinghASushil. Integrated approach for finding the causal effect of waste management over sustainability in the organization. Benchmark Int J2021; 28(10): 3040–3073. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-08-2020-0419
30.
ChowdhuryEK. Drivers of entrepreneurship development in South Asia: empirical insights and policy recommendations. J Innov Entrep2025; 14(1): 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-025-00512-w
31.
HughesACGrumbineRE. The Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework: what it does and does not do, and how to improve it. Front Environ Sci2023; 11: 1281536. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1281536
32.
HaqueFNtimCG. Do corporate sustainability initiatives improve corporate carbon performance? Evidence from European firms. Bus Strat Environ2022; 31(7): 3318–3334. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3078
33.
NesKCiaianP. EU marketing standards and sustainability. Appl Econ Perspect Pol2022; 44(4): 1844–1863. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13265
34.
SunGSulemanaIAgyemangAO. Examining the impact of stakeholders’ pressures on sustainability practices. Manag Decis2025; 63: 3967–3995. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-06-2023-1008
35.
SunYLuoBWangS, et al.What you see is meaningful: Does green advertising change the intentions of consumers to purchase eco‐labeled products?Bus Strat Environ2021; 30(1): 694–704. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2648
36.
BoiralOHeras-SaizarbitoriaI. Managing biodiversity through stakeholder involvement: why, who, and for what initiatives?J Bus Ethics2017; 140(3): 403–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2668-3
37.
WagnerRGrimmMS. Empirical validation of the 10-times rule for SEM. In: State of the art in partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) methodological extensions and applications in the social sciences and beyond. Springer, 2023, pp. 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34589-0_1
38.
SuJGaoXTanJ. Positioning for optimal distinctiveness: how firms manage competitive and institutional pressures under dynamic and complex environment. Strateg Manag J2024; 45(2): 333–361. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3549
SharmaIBirmanS. Biodiversity loss, ecosystem services, and their role in promoting sustainable health. In: The climate-health-sustainability nexus: understanding the interconnected impact on populations and the environment. Springer, 2024, pp. 163–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56564-9_7
42.
PanwarR. Business and biodiversity: achieving the 2050 vision for biodiversity conservation through transformative business practices. Biodivers Conserv2023; 32(11): 3607–3613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-023-02575-1
