Given the tourism sector's considerable environmental impact and economic relevance, assessing environmental sustainability is important. This is particularly relevant given the commitments established in the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A sample of 147 firms from 39 countries and Refinitiv data accessed via LSEG Workspace were used to construct an index of material environmental disclosure based on Sustainability Accounting Standards Board standards. Using a Generalized Method of Moments approach, we find that environmental disclosure is positively associated with market capitalization, with a stronger relationship observed in common law jurisdictions. These findings underscore the value of managerial proactivity in adopting materiality-based sustainability disclosures and highlight the role of regulatory initiatives in fostering such practices, which may strengthen investor confidence and enhance firm value.
FaqihAKramerR. The corporate sustainability reporting directive (CSRD): an effective approach to implementation. Diponegoro J Account2024; 13.
2.
Van ZantenJAVan TulderR. Improving companies’ impacts on sustainable development: a nexus approach to the SDGs. Bus Strat Environ2021; 30: 3703–3722.
3.
TsangAFrostTCaoH. Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosure: a literature review. Br Account Rev2023; 55: 101149.
4.
JonesPWynnMHillierD, et al.The sustainable development goals and information and communication technologies. Indones J Sustain Account Manag2017; 1: 1–15.
SunYYFaturayFLenzenM, et al.Drivers of global tourism carbon emissions. Nat Commun2024; 15: 10384.
7.
HedleyTPorcoBKeininghamTL, et al.Beyond apples and oranges: unraveling the complexity in corporate sustainability reporting. J Service Manage2024; 35: 512–524.
8.
AbeysekeraI. A framework for sustainability reporting. Sustain Account Manag Policy J2022; 13: 1386–1409.
9.
KwartoFNurafiahNSuharmanH, et al.The potential bias for sustainability reporting of global upstream oil and gas companies: a systematic literature review of the evidence. Manag Rev Q2024; 74: 35–64.
10.
ParfittC. ESG integration and its derivative logic of ethics: exposing the limits of sustainability capitalism. New Political Economy2024; 29: 221–239.
GrewalJHauptmannCSerafeimG. Material sustainability information and stock price informativeness. J Bus Ethics2021; 171: 513–544.
13.
CaluDADumitruMGlăvanME, et al.(Non)financial reporting (a)symmetries in the case of Amusement Parks in Europe. Amfiteatru Econ J2016; 18: 1015–1033.
14.
MadisonNSchiehllE. The effect of financial materiality on ESG performance assessment. Sustainability2021; 13: 3652.
15.
FiechterPHitzJMLehmannN. Real effects of a widespread CSR reporting mandate: evidence from the European Union’s CSR Directive. J Account Res2022; 60: 1499–1549.
16.
De VilliersCDimesRLa TorreM, et al.The international sustainability standards board’s (ISSB) past, present and future: critical reflections and a research agenda. Pac Account Rev2024; 36: 255–273.
17.
CaglarAEGökçeNBalsalobre-LorenteD. Towards the vision of going green: the role of different energy research and development investments, urbanization and income in load capacity factor. Sustain Energy Technol Assess2024; 68: 103888.
18.
CaglarAEDaştanMDemirdagI. Is low carbon energy consumption sufficient for a sustainable environment in BRICS economies? Evidence from novel Fourier asymmetric CS-ARDL. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess2025; 39: 1–16.
19.
AmeliNDrummondPBisaroA, et al.Climate finance and disclosure for institutional investors: why transparency is not enough. Clim Change2020; 160: 565–589.
20.
VelteP. A literature review concerning the non-carbon-related environmental goals of the EU taxonomy regulation and the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). J Global Respons2025; 16: 542–568.
21.
CarvajalMNadeemM. Financially material sustainability reporting and firm performance in New Zealand. Meditari Account Res2023; 31: 938–969.
22.
EngLLFikruMVichitsarawongT. Comparing the informativeness of sustainability disclosures versus ESG disclosure ratings. Sustain Account Manag Policy J2022; 13: 494–518.
23.
ShenSXieJFujiiH, et al.Does environmental materiality matter to corporate financial performance: evidence from 34 countries. Corp Soc Respons Environ Manage2025; 32: 2390–2411.
24.
BodhanwalaSBodhanwalaR. Exploring relationship between sustainability and firm performance in travel and tourism industry: a global evidence. Soc Respons J2022; 18: 1251–1269.
25.
BuallayAAl-AjmiJBaroneE. Sustainability engagement’s impact on tourism sector performance: linear and nonlinear models. J Organ Change Manag2022; 35: 361–384.
26.
KangKHLeeSHuhC. Impacts of positive and negative corporate social responsibility activities on company performance in the hospitality industry. Int J Hosp Manag2010; 29: 72–82.
27.
TheodoulidisBDiazDCrottoF, et al.Exploring corporate social responsibility and financial performance through stakeholder theory in the tourism industries. Tour Manag2017; 62: 173–188.
28.
LeeSKimBHamS. Strategic CSR for airlines: does materiality matter?Int J Contemp Hosp Manag2018; 30: 3592–3608.
29.
KimBLeeS. The impact of material and immaterial sustainability on firm performance: the moderating role of franchising strategy. Tour Manag2020; 77: 103999.
30.
AhleringBDeakinS. Labor regulation, corporate governance and legal origin: a case of institutional complementarity?Law Soc Rev2007; 41: 865–908.
31.
CamolettoSMontes-SanchoMJSantiniE. Multinational corporations and their corporate citizenships: exploring their effects on corporate performance under different legal traditions. J Public Affairs2024; 24: 2942.
32.
GhabriY. Legal protection systems, corporate governance and firm performance: a cross-country comparison. Stud Econ Finance2022; 39: 256–278.
33.
WenJZhangSChangCP. Legal origins and innovation: global evidence. Technol Forecast Soc Change2022; 174: 121216.
34.
AliSHamidABBAYa’akubNIB, et al.Environmental impacts of international tourism: examining the role of policy uncertainty, renewable energy and service sector output. Environ Sci Pollut Res2024; 31: 46221–46234.
35.
GösslingSBalasMMayerM, et al.A review of tourism and climate change mitigation: the scales, scopes, stakeholders and strategies of carbon management. Tourism Manag2023; 95: 104681.
36.
ScottDGösslingS. A review of research into tourism and climate change: launching the annals of tourism research curated collection on tourism and climate change. Ann Tour Res2022; 95: 103409.
37.
LegendreTSDingABackKJ. A bibliometric analysis of the hospitality and tourism environmental, social, and governance (ESG) literature. J Hosp Tour Manag2024; 58: 309–321.
38.
RaniRVasishtaPSinglaA, et al.Mapping ESG and CSR literature: a bibliometric study of research trends and emerging themes. Int J Law Manag2025; 67: 1–25.
39.
XieJTanakaYKeeleyAR, et al.Do investors incorporate financial materiality? Remapping the environmental information in corporate sustainability reporting. Corp Soc Respons Environ Manage2023; 30: 2924–2952.
40.
HaleySShafferMSloanR. Do sustainability reports contain financially material information?Rev Account Stud2025; 30: 1–36.
KoseogluMAUyarAKilicM, et al.Exploring the connections among CSR performance, reporting, and external assurance: evidence from the hospitality and tourism industry. Int J Hosp Manag2021; 94: 102819.
43.
YeJSotiriadisMDimouI, et al.Suggesting a tourism industry-specific environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) reporting framework. Tour Manag2025; 109: 105156.
44.
Al AmoshH. Exploring the influence of accounting reporting complexity on ESG disclosure. Corp Soc Respons Environ Manag2025; 32: 5760–5778.
45.
SmithDG. The shareholder primacy norm. J Corp Law1997; 23: 277.
46.
BottenbergKTuschkeAFlickingerM. Corporate governance between shareholder and stakeholder orientation: lessons from Germany. J Manag Inq2017; 26: 165–180.
47.
YoshikawaTNippaMChuaG. Global shift towards stakeholder-oriented corporate governance? Evidence from the scholarly literature and future research opportunities. Multinat Bus Rev2021; 29: 321–347.
48.
JebeR. The convergence of financial and ESG materiality: taking sustainability mainstream. Am Bus Law J2019; 56: 645–702.
49.
RossSA. The determination of financial structure: the incentive-signalling approach. Bell J Econ1977; 8: 23–40.
50.
ChenZXieG. ESG Disclosure and financial performance: moderating role of ESG investors. Int Rev Financ Anal2022; 83: 102291.
51.
RaimoNCaragnanoAZitoM, et al.Extending the benefits of ESG disclosure: The effect on the cost of debt financing. Corp Soc Respons Environ Manage2021; 28: 1412–1421.
52.
AkerlofGA. The market for ‘lemons’: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Q J Econ1970; 84: 235–251.
53.
BaierCGöttscheMHellmannA, et al.Too good to be true: influencing credibility perceptions with signalling reference explicitness and assurance depth. J Bus Ethics2022; 178: 695–714.
54.
AvciSBCaglarAE. Exploring the United States’ 2050 net zero-emission paths via nonlinear Fourier procedures: the role of low-carbon energy technology, income and foreign direct investments. Nucl Eng Technol2025; 57: 103380.
55.
ErdasMLCaglarAEUcheE, et al.A new frontier in understanding the dynamics of environmental sustainability in the context of finance and low carbon energy investment: evidence from artificial intelligence and Fourier approach. Energy2025; 315: 134419.
56.
DiMaggioPJPowellWW. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am Sociol Rev1983; 48: 147–160.
57.
MeyerJWRowanB. Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. Am J Sociol1977; 83: 340–362.
58.
LindahlFKantolaSPSchadewitzH. Impact of country-specific business integrity and firm-specific ESG on earnings quality: evidence from EU civil law jurisdictions. J Financ Report Account2024.
59.
PanSYGaoMKimH, et al.Advances and challenges in sustainable tourism toward a green economy. Sci Total Environ2018; 635: 452–469.
60.
Pulido-FernándezJICárdenas-GarcíaPJEspinosa-PulidoJA. Does environmental sustainability contribute to tourism growth? An analysis at the country level. J Clean Prod2019; 213: 309–319.
61.
KolkA. Sustainability, accountability and corporate governance: exploring multinationals’ reporting practices. Bus Strat Environ2008; 17: 1–15.
62.
HelfayaAAboudAAminE. An examination of corporate environmental goals disclosure, sustainability performance and firm value – an Egyptian evidence. J Int Account Audit Tax2023; 52: 100561.
63.
EcclesRGIoannouISerafeimG. The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Manag Sci2014; 60: 2835–2857.
64.
GarcíaCJHerreroBMorillas-JuradoF. The impact of the environmental, social and governance dimensions of sustainability on firm risk in the hospitality and tourism industry. Corp Soc Respons Environ Manage2024; 31: 2783–2800.
65.
AbideenZU. The moderating role of investor sentiments between sustainability reporting and firm reputation: evidence from Chinese listed firms. Corp Soc Respons Environ Manage2025; 32: 138–159.
66.
QiuYShaukatATharyanR. Environmental and social disclosures: link with corporate financial performance. Br Account Rev2016; 48: 102–116.
67.
ChristensenHBHailLLeuzC. Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: economic analysis and literature review. Rev Account Stud2021; 26: 1176–1248.
68.
IonescuGHFiroiuDPirvuR, et al.The impact of ESG factors on market value of companies from travel and tourism industry. Technol Econ Dev Econ2019; 25: 820–849.
69.
SongHJWeiW. Environmental practices and firm performance in the hospitality industry: does national culture matter?J Hosp Tour Res2025; 49: 529–547.
70.
CaglarAEGökçeNBalsalobre-LorenteD. Towards the vision of going green: the role of different energy research and development investments, urbanization and income in load capacity factor. Sustain Energy Technol Assess2024; 68: 103888.
71.
CaglarAEDemirdagIDestekMA, et al.Achieving ecological sustainability in European countries: does low carbon energy lead to a carbon neutrality pathway?Sci Total Environ2025; 958: 177915.
72.
LevittA. The importance of high-quality accounting standards. Account Horiz1998; 12: 79–82.
73.
GrewalJHauptmannCSerafeimG. Stock price synchronicity and material sustainability information. Harvard Bus Sch Work Pap2017; 17–098.
Del GessoCLodhiRN. Theories underlying environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure: a systematic review of accounting studies. J Account Lit2025; 47: 433–461.
76.
RosatiFFariaLGD. Addressing the SDGs in sustainability reports: the relationship with institutional factors. J Clean Prod2019; 215: 1312–1326.
77.
LajnefKEllouzS. Do cultural differences moderate the relationship between CSR and earnings quality: common law evidence pre and during COVID-19 crisis. Int J Account Inf Manage2025; 33: 213–240.
78.
BallRRobinAWuJS. Incentives versus standards: properties of accounting income in four east Asian countries. J Account Econ2003; 36: 235–270.
79.
DöringSDrobetzWEl GhoulS, et al.Foreign institutional investors, legal origin, and corporate greenhouse gas emissions disclosure. J Bus Ethics2023; 182: 903–932.
80.
JiangXKimSLuS. Limited accountability and awareness of corporate emissions target outcomes. Nat Clim Change2025; 15: 279–286.
81.
La PortaRde Silanes FLShleiferA, et al.Law and finance. J Political Econ1998; 106: 1113–1155.
82.
OECD. Corporate governance in MENA: Building a framework for competitiveness and growth. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2019.
83.
ÖzcanİÇ. Determinants of environmental, social, and governance disclosure performance of publicly traded airports. Int J Transport Econ2019; 46: 77–92.
84.
Frías-AceitunoJVRodríguez-ArizaLGarcía-SánchezIM. Is integrated reporting determined by a country’s legal system? An exploratory study. J Clean Prod2013; 44: 45–55.
85.
HuangRCuiHSunX. Legal determinants of ESG growth: cross-national evidence from regulatory reforms. Finance Res Lett2025; 86: 108396.
86.
KhlifHGuidaraASouissiM. Corporate social and environmental disclosure and corporate performance: evidence from South Africa and Morocco. J Account Emerg Econ2015; 5: 51–69.
87.
AdeneyeYBKammounIAbWahabSNA. Capital structure and speed of adjustment: the impact of environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance. Sustain Account Manag Policy J2023; 14: 945–977.
88.
GawedaA. ESG Rating and market valuation of the firm: sector approach. Euro J Sustain Dev2022; 11: 91–104.
89.
KuzeyCUyarANizaevaM, et al.CSR Performance and firm performance in the tourism, healthcare, and financial sectors: do metrics and CSR committees’ matter?J Clean Prod2021; 319: 128802.
BrownSJGoetzmannWNLiangB, et al.Survivorship bias in performance studies. Rev Financ Stud2008; 21: 1783–1821.
92.
ChouaibiSChouaibiJRossiM. ESG and corporate financial performance. The mediating role of green innovation: UK common law versus Germany civil law. EuroMed J Bus2022; 17: 46–71.
93.
JungYLYooHS. Environmental, social, and governance activities and firm performance: global evidence and the moderating effect of market competition. Corp Soc Respons Environ Manage2023; 30: 2830–2839.
94.
KlibiEDamakSElwafiO. The impact of sustainability assurance levels on market capitalization: the case of French firms. J Financ Report Account2024.Advance online publication.
95.
BettiGConsolandiCEcclesRG. The relationship between investor materiality and the sustainable development goals: a methodological framework. Sustainability2018; 10: 2248.
96.
ConsolandiCEcclesRGGabbiG. How material is a material issue? Stock returns and the financial relevance and financial intensity of ESG materiality. J Sustain Financ Invest2022; 12: 1045–1068.
KurbusBRantV. A legal origins perspective on ESG rating disagreement. Res Int Bus Finance2024; 74: 102702.
99.
AlareeniBAHamdanA. ESG Impact on performance of US S&P 500–listed firms. Corp Gov Int J Bus Soc2020; 20: 1409–1428.
100.
BroccardoLTruantEDanaLP. The sustainability orientation in the wine industry: an analysis based on age as a driver. Corp Soc Respons Environ Manage2023; 30: 1300–1313.
101.
HamdanA. Board interlocking and firm performance: the role of foreign ownership in Saudi Arabia. Int J Managerial Finance2018; 14: 266–281.
102.
DansoFKAduseiMSarpong-DanquahB, et al.Board expertise diversity and firm performance in sub-Saharan Africa: do firm age and size matter?Future Bus J2024; 10: 98.
103.
TingPH. Do large firms just talk corporate social responsibility? The Evidence from CSR report disclosure. Finance Res Lett2021; 38: 101476.
104.
DsouzaSDemirajRHabibniyaH. Impact of liquidity and leverage on performance: panel data evidence of hotels and entertainment services industry in the MENA region. Int J Hosp Tourism Syst2023; 16: 27–39.
105.
NguyenHMWongWKVuongTHG. Market capitalized scale and corporate capital structure – evidence from CSI300’s listed firms. Ann Financ Econ2023; 18: 2350002.
106.
HongliJAjorsuESBakpaEK. The effect of liquidity and financial leverage on firm performance: evidence from listed manufacturing firms on the Ghana stock exchange. Res J Finance Account2019; 10: 91–100.
107.
RamliNALatanHSolovidaGT. Determinants of capital structure and firm financial performance—a PLS-SEM approach: evidence from Malaysia and Indonesia. Q Rev Econ Finance2019; 71: 148–160.
108.
ShamailehMOKhanfarSM. The effect of the financial leverage on the profitability in the tourism companies (analytical study-tourism sector-Jordan). Bus Econ Res2014; 4: 251–264.
109.
JensenMCMecklingWH. Theory of the firm: managerial behaviour, agency costs and ownership structure. J Financ Econ1976; 3: 305–360.
110.
HuaNUpnejaA. Do investors reward restaurant firms that go abroad?Int J Contemp Hosp Manag2011; 23: 174–188.
111.
SunWPriceJDingY. The longitudinal effects of internationalization on firm performance: the moderating role of marketing capability. J Bus Res2019; 95: 326–337.
112.
JungSLeeSDalborM. The negative synergistic effect of internationalization and corporate social responsibility on US restaurant firms’ value performance. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag2016; 28: 1759–1777.
113.
MoosaIAKhatatbehIN. International tourist arrivals as a determinant of the severity of COVID-19: international cross-sectional evidence. J Policy Res Tourism Leisure Events2021; 13: 419–434.
114.
IoannouISerafeimG. What drives corporate social performance? The role of nation-level institutions. J Int Bus Stud2023; 54: 14–23.
115.
El GhoulSGuedhamiOKimH, et al.Corporate environmental responsibility and the cost of capital: international evidence. J Bus Ethics2018; 149: 335–361.
116.
ArellanoMBondS. Some tests of specification for panel data: monte carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev Econ Stud1991; 58: 277–297.
117.
PindadoJRequejoI. Family business performance from a governance perspective: a review of empirical research. Int J Manag Rev2015; 17: 279–311.
118.
BaumCSchafferMStillmanS. Instrumental variables and GMM: estimation and testing. Stata J2003; 3: 1–31.
119.
BisharaAJHittnerJB. Reducing bias and error in the correlation coefficient due to nonnormality. Educ Psychol Meas2014; 75: 785–804.
KleinbaumDGKupperLLMullerKE. Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods. Boston, MA: PWS-Kent, 1988.
122.
GergedAMSalemRBeddewelaE. How does transparency into global sustainability initiatives influence firm value? Insights from Anglo-American Countries. Bus Strat Environ2023; 32: 4519–4547.
123.
Al-ShaerHZamanM. Credibility of sustainability reports: The contribution of audit committees. Bus Strat Environ2018; 27: 973–986.
124.
JoudiSMansourfarGHomayounS, et al.The power of purpose: how material sustainability and stakeholder orientation drive financial success. Corp Gov2024; 24: 1384–1413.
JosePE. ModGraph-I: A programme to compute cell means for the graphical display of moderational analyses: The internet version, Version 3.0. Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria Univ. Wellington, 2013.
127.
BeckerSOIchinoA. Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores. Stata J2002; 2: 358–377.
128.
CaliendoMKopeinigS. Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. J Econ Surv2008; 22: 31–72.
129.
HeinrichCMaffioliAVázquezG. A primer for applying propensity-score matching. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank, 2011.
130.
ChangSJShimJ. When does transitioning from family to professional management improve firm performance?Strateg Manag J2015; 36: 1297–1316.
131.
LiDChungKAdriaensP. Empirical evidence of ESG premium in the US corporate bond market: a propensity score matching approach. J Sustain Finance Invest2025; 15: 52–76.
132.
LiuWHeugensPPMARWijenF, et al.Chinese management studies: a matched-samples meta-analysis and focused review of indigenous theories. J Manag2022; 48: 1778–1828.
133.
TreepongkarunaSKyawKJirapornP. ESG controversies, corporate governance, and the market for corporate control. J Sustain Finance Invest2024; 14: 815–842.
134.
VenkatramanN. The concept of fit in strategy research: toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Acad Manage Rev1989; 14: 423–443.
135.
ChowGC. Tests of equality between sets of coefficients in two linear regressions. Econometrica1960; 28: 591–605.
