The Relationship Between Sustainability Culture and Funding in the Nigerian Power Generation Sector.

The Relationship Between Sustainability Culture and Funding in the Nigerian Power Generation Sector.

Mrs. Nwabuike Chetachukwu Benedicta¹, Dr. Harshini Esther^2*

Exeed College

^*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.90300400

Received: 13 March 2024; Accepted: 22 March 2025; Published: 24 April 2025

ABSTRACT

Over the past four decades, the power industry in Nigeria has continued to experience a continuous deterioration, which can be partly attributable to inadequate infrastructure development, which has been ultimately related to insufficient funding for the sector. The growing evidence of investors driving corporate sustainability and the increasing popularity of impact funding has forced a reevaluation of whether a sustainability culture in Nigerian power generating companies will attract investors to the power generation sector. The objectives of this study are to investigate how sustainable business practices can be embedded in organizational culture to drive corporate sustainability and explore whether the implementation of sustainable business practices attracts impact funding in the Nigerian power generation sector. To achieve these objectives, an interpretivism ideology that prioritized qualitative over quantitative analysis was developed. As a result, an explanatory research design was chosen, and literature review research was employed for this study. The literature study necessitated the review of numerous earlier research works, which provided the researcher with a wide range of options for answering the research questions effectively and adequately. Internal and external factors drive organizations to adopt corporate sustainability, and different approaches are used to establish a culture of sustainability within an organization. The most appropriate approach is establishing an organizational framework that enables organizations to incorporate sustainable business practices into their organizational culture. With growing number of impact investors companies in the Nigerian power generation industry can harness a culture of sustainability to attract investor funding in the power generation sector. The study advises that empirical research be undertaken on this topic to gain more insight into revitalizing Nigeria’s power generation sector.

Keywords: Corporate Sustainability, Organisational Culture, Investor funding, and Power generation.

INTRODUCTION

Research problem & significance and background of research study

Energy inaccessibility in Nigeria has increasingly become a crucial challenge for both national and economic development (Oyedepo, 2012). Several factors contribute to the country’s significant electricity deficit, including technical and infrastructure losses in the electrical value chain, which are ultimately linked to inadequate energy sector finance (Edekin, 2021). Prior research conducted by Eke (2014) revealed that private equity, foreign equity investment, and multilateral agency financing are the most available domestic and international funding sources for the Nigerian electricity sector.

However, with the current emphasis on sustainability, investors’ investment preferences have shifted toward more sustainable organizations. This has increased investors’ interest in impact and socially responsible investing. With the growing trend toward sustainable financing, organizational leaders in power generation businesses recognize that discussions about corporate sustainability will not go away, as seen by the concept’s incorporation into their organizational culture. Despite widespread calls for more sustainable businesses, prior studies examining the relationships between social and environmental performance and financial performance (Orlitzky et al., 2003; Peloza, 2009) have remained ambiguous, producing inconclusive results. This raises the question of whether building a sustainability culture is sufficient to attract investors to invest in Nigeria’s power generation sector.

Funding issues in the power sector and the concept of sustainability are currently topical issues in Nigeria, particularly with the increase of social investors demanding the incorporation of sustainability practices in power companies in Nigeria. As such, an in-depth qualitative study is required to understand the relationship between company sustainability and investor funding. This necessitated this study, titled “The Relationship Between Sustainability Culture and Organizational Funding In Nigeria’s Power Generation Sector.”

The research aims to understand whether a culture of sustainability can help Nigerian power generation companies attract funding from investors. This study will in specifically examine what the key drivers for embracing corporate sustainability in organizations are, how organizations can establish a culture of sustainability and identify whether there is any relationship between the implementation of sustainable business practices and investor funding in the Nigerian power generation sector.

It is expected that the pursuit of this research will provide further insight to organizations in the Nigerian power generation sector on how the practice of sustainability will help build the much-needed capacity to boost electricity supply in Nigeria.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Business sustainability has gained popularity in organizational theory and practice. Many experts suggest that building a sustainability-oriented organizational culture makes adopting corporate sustainability principles easier (Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2010). However, existing models and ideas on sustainability-oriented culture transformation have been criticized for relying too heavily on simplistic formulas and a lack of understanding of how culture change could occur. Harris & Crane (2002) contend that these models should address how culture change should be initiated and used to bring about the necessary organizational changes, in this case, attract investors.

This literature review will be divided into three themes to address these issues:

1. Organizational Culture.
2. Sustainability Culture and Sustainable Business Practices
3. Sustainability culture and Impact Investing in the Power Generation Sector of Nigeria

Organizational culture

Understanding sustainability culture requires understanding organizational culture and its impact on it. Culture encompasses a people’s values, clothes, language, and actions and pervades any group or organization. Scholars like Linnenluecke & Griffiths (2010), Harris & Crane (2002), Jarnagin & Slocum (2007), and Ashkanasy, et al (2000) affirm that organizational culture has been understood differently. Although there are many definitions, one that has endured is Schein’s (1984), who defines organizational culture as “the pattern of basic assumptions that a given group has developed in learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, which has worked well enough to be considered valid”.

Beslin (2007), Jarnagin & Slocum (2007), and Mitchell (2002) demonstrate that organizational culture presents itself in stories and languages, value statements, rituals, rules, regulations and procedures and the physical structure of the company. Sukiennik & Bak (2019) and Hatch & Cunliffe (2006) further established that organizational cultures vary in industries, business climates, and social interactions, drawing our attention to the fact that organizational culture is a dynamic and evolving process changed by societal expectations like corporate sustainability.

Sustainability culture and sustainable business practices

The concept of organizational sustainability was derived from the Brundtland (1987) Report, which says that humanity should be able to meet its current needs without affecting future generations’ ability to meet their own needs. According to the report, environmental concerns must be tackled with food security, equitable resource distribution, sustainable energy paths, and enhanced efficiency. Unfortunately, energy companies significantly contribute to the deterioration of our planet’s condition, with business leaders in this sector struggling to meet rising regulatory requirements, investor demand, and consumer demand for environmentally responsible products and services (DeBono, 2004). This realization has cleared the way for incorporating environmental management and sustainability practices into power companies to satisfy market concerns and investor finance (Pabian et al., 2021).

Prior studies have indicated divergent views about the component of corporate sustainability. Scholars like Willard (2012), Dunphy et al. (2003), Venkatraman & Nayak (2015), and Loviscek (2021) claim that corporate sustainability should only focus on a triple bottom line framework (people, planet, and profit). Others like Ziolo et al. (2019) and Chipalkatti et al. (2021) contend it must embrace environmental, social, and governance pillars. Though these two ideals share similarities regarding environmental and social concerns, they are limited in excluding governance in the former and profit in the latter. Jacobs & Finney (2019) correctly point out that for the practice of sustainability to be comprehensive, it must consist of four pillars: environmental, social, profit, and governance. This is significant because an organization cannot be sustainable if it is not economically viable and has no robust governance systems. This collaborates Bertels et al. (2010) affirmation of a sustainable culture as one in which people within an organization share similar values and attitudes regarding the significance of balancing environmental stewardship, social equality and profitability.

Crane (2015) reports that many organizations have implemented new policies, products, and processes to battle pollution, protect the environment, and promote community and stakeholder participation. However, several scholars have refuted these efforts, advocating that they are shallow and insufficient to establish sustainable organizations (Hart & Milstein, 1999; Senge et al., 2001). To create a sustainable culture, Bertels et al. (2010), Linnenluecke & Griffiths (2010) and Schein (2004) revealed that sustainable business practices must be embedded in an organization’s operations and culture. This is especially significant because it aligns with the central idea proposed by Harris & Crane (2002) that organizations must develop a sustainability-oriented organizational culture when transitioning to corporate sustainability. This culture must incorporate environmental, social, and governance values implemented through sustainable business practices (Crane, 2015). These values must be promoted by the company’s founders and senior managers, transcend different levels of the business, shared with all employees, reinforced to become part of the organization’s culture, and eventually its sustainability culture (Wijethilake et al. 2019; Fietz & Gunther, 2021). This tells us that organizations can establish a sustainability culture through sustainable practices influencing employee behavior toward sustainability initiatives, ensuring their dedication and support for accomplishing sustainability goals.

Sustainability culture and impact investing in the Nigerian power generation sector

Increasing numbers of firms are adopting sustainable practices to increase long-term efficiency, avoid negative consequences on the business and environment, and satisfy investor expectations. Guay et al. (2004), Lemke & Lins (2014), Lee (2021), and Busch et al. (2021) have demonstrated that the growing interest in impact investing has begun to influence how asset managers invest in diversified portfolios and how organizations seeking financial assistance are beginning to act. According to Logue (2009), specialized contractors frequently examine publicly traded companies’ responsible investment portfolios, discouraging investors from investing in businesses that produce alcohol, tobacco, fast food, gambling, pornography, weapons, contraception and abortion, fossil fuels, and the military industries.

However, some researchers, such as Khan et al. (2016), Camilleri (2017), and Ortar (2020), have proven that organizations need to act responsibly and transcend their sustainability culture into actionable, sustainable practices in order to attract investors. However, it may not be economically viable and practical for organizations to implement every identified sustainable business practice. This is affirmed by Jacobs & Finney (2019) as some organizations engage in greenwashing, claiming to be sustainable when their actions demonstrate otherwise. Therefore, organizations must focus on the most economically viable and practically feasible sustainable business practices.

Pang (2017) identified six key sustainability issues that are material in the energy sector. These are energy efficiency and transitioning, greenhouse gas emissions, water management, health & safety, community relations, bribery and corruption, corporate governance, and corporate disclosures. The most persistent demand from investors in Nigeria’s power generation sector is for power companies to transit from fossil fuels like gas, coal, and diesel to renewable energy sources like solar, hydro, and wind (Roche et al., 2020), as majority of the power generation plants in Nigeria are still fossil fueled, damaging the environment and resulting in a substantial decline of international funding for fossil fuel-powered projects (Mazzucato & Semieniuk, 2017; Ugwu et al., 2021).

Prior research by Tirpak & Adams (2008), Ngoasong et al. (2015), Oniemola (2015), Anyaogu (2018), Isah (2019), Roche et al. (2020), and Imanche et al. (2021) have demonstrated that impact investors are willing to invest in sustainable businesses with a future increase in funding as renewable energy enterprises increase. Furthermore, these investors have shown a desire to fund private equity enterprises that adhere to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards, clearly proving a connection between a culture of sustainability and sustainable financial decisions.

Several studies on funding in Nigeria’s power generation sector have primarily been unrelated to the sustainability culture in the Nigerian power sector. This study is needed to bridge these gaps and contribute to the expanding knowledge of sustainability culture and impact funding in Nigeria’s power generation sector.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research approach and design

This study exemplifies an interpretive epistemological perspective, as the primary objective will be to gather information from the viewpoint of prior researchers. Since the research will be qualitative rather than quantitative, statistical methods such as descriptive analysis and conceptual content analysis were applied in the interpretation of the different data collected from prior researches to ensure validity of the results.

Guba & Lincoln (1994) state that in selecting a research methodology, “it is proper to select that paradigm whose assumptions are best met by phenomenon being investigated.” There are three approaches to conducting research: qualitative approach, quantitative approach, and mixed approach (Creswell, 2009; Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2007; Alivernini, 2012). The selection of a research approach and design is usually based on the research problem or issue being addressed. Experimental and (structured) survey approaches are employed in quantitative research. However, a qualitative approach is justified if a concept or phenomenon has to be studied and comprehended because a little study has been done. A mixed-methods study combines the collection and analysis of quantitative and qualitative data. Though prior research has been done on sustainability culture, none has involved investor finance in Nigeria’s power generation sector. Therefore, the most appropriate approach for this research was the qualitative approach, which provides a comprehensive description and analysis of the research issue without limiting the research’s scope or the kind of participant responses. This is the qualitative research method’s key advantage and primary distinction from the quantitative research method (Collis & Hussey, 2014).

Since the interpretivism philosophy emphasizes using qualitative analysis over quantitative analysis, the explanatory research design was adopted, and the methodology for this study was desktop research upon which descriptive and conceptual content analysis were deployed in the analysis and interpretation of data. In addition, the research method involved the collection of prior research works, providing the researcher with greater scope to effectively and adequately answer the research questions.

Research sampling and description and sources of secondary data selected

Research sampling and Description

The researcher adopted non-probability sampling in this qualitative research, specifically using the convenience and purposive sampling methods. These sampling methods were used because of the need to quickly access relevant data that could provide expert knowledge and information sought by the researcher (Lopez and Whitehead, 2013). However, these sampling methods involved the researcher selecting the sample using a subjective method based on judgement (Scribbr, 2021a; O’Gorman & MacIntosh, 2015). The sample, which consisted of previous research, was drawn from a population of open source publicly available secondary data from various databases such as ProQuest, google scholar, ResearchGate, Science Direct, Emerald, JSTOR, and Springer Link. The searches were made using phrases that contained keywords such as sustainability culture, sustainability practices, power generation, impact investing, sustainable finance, and the Nigerian power generation sector. This systematic approach culminated a population of 60 articles.

Sources of secondary data selected

Data used during the research were sourced from books, peer-reviewed academic publications, journal articles, conference papers, academic reports, government publications, newspaper reports, and data compiled from industry statistics and reports. Data was collected from academic publications, journal articles, conference papers, academic reports, published theses and dissertations, conference papers, and other research papers published within the last two decades in the following areas:

1. The theory and practice of culture, sustainability culture, organizational culture, sustainability, corporate sustainability, sustainable business practices, sustainable financing, and impact investing, and how they contribute to the success of Nigerian and international organizations.
2. The impact of sustainable business practices in companies in various  industries, with a focus on Nigeria’s power generation industry.
3. The drivers of sustainable, social, impact, philanthropic, and socially responsible investing in Nigeria and worldwide, emphasizing the power industry.
4. The relationship between sustainability culture, sustainable business practices, and investor appeal in Nigeria and overseas, particularly in the power generation industry.
5. Transitioning power generation companies in Nigeria from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources.

Quality of secondary data

Data selected for this research were sought from reputable databases ensuring data quality in terms of relevance, credibility, and timeliness to the current research. Collecting these data from reputable databases also ensured the quality of the research because data from these sources have been reviewed and validated and can be said to be authoritative. They were also the most relevant to the study particularly in terms of the dates of their publication. Using keywords throughout data collection ensured that the data acquired were pertinent to the research and would effectively address the research questions (Hox & Boeije, 2005; Scribbr, 2021b). The credibility of the data collected was established by evaluating the appropriateness of the data collection methods and the results of the consistency of the data (O’Leary, 2020; Saunders et al. 2015).

RESEARCH FINDINGS

The analysis and interpretation of data is carried out using a qualitative approach.

The findings are presented based on the research questions in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Categorization of literature review based on research questions.

Out of the 60-literature collected, only 52 of these were relevant and used to interpret the results. The remaining 8 were discarded from the analysis.

Key drivers of sustainability in organizations

Table 2: Drivers that promote corporate sustainability in organizations

The study was carried out with a review of various literature on the drivers of corporate sustainability in organizations across various industries. The research identified 25 factors that drive organizations to consider embracing sustainable business practices. These drivers were ranked based on the frequency of their appearance in the literature analyzed, as presented in Table 1 above. Based on the result, the researcher identified five top drivers of corporate sustainability, as shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Key drivers of corporate sustainability in organizations.

The first five ranking drivers were abjudged to be the key drivers that encourage organizations to implement sustainable business practices: Government Regulation, Social Activism, Competitive Advantage, Funding attraction, Cost reduction, Customers, and Environmental Issues.

Approaches to establishing sustainability culture in organizations

To analyze sustainability culture approaches in organizations, seventeen existing pieces of literature were reviewed. From the various literature reviewed, the research revealed three categorizations of how organizations have integrated sustainability, thus establishing a culture of sustainability in the past. The first category of literature posits that the integration of corporate sustainability to establish a sustainability culture must be done through an organizational framework comprising organizational structure, organizational culture, leadership, management control, employee involvement, and communication. The second category of literature posits that a sustainability culture can be established by implementing sustainable practices in the organization. Finally, the third category is a mix of the first and second categories. Figure 2 below shows a graphical representation of these positions.

Figure 2: Ways through which sustainability culture is established in organizations.

Establishment of the relationship between sustainability culture and investor funding in Nigeria’s power generation sector.

In this section, the researcher reviewed relevant literature to investigate whether a relationship exists between sustainability culture and investor funding in Nigeria’s power generation sector. This research was broken into two phases. The first phase was to establish the prevailing sustainability practices in Nigeria’s power generation companies. The second phase investigated the level of impact investors who have invested in power generation companies in Nigeria with the prevailing sustainability practices.

Phase 1 – Identification of the prevailing sustainability practices in Nigeria’s power generation companies.

There was limited literature on sustainability practices in power generation companies in Nigeria and so the search was expanded to include companies in the energy sector within and outside Nigeria. The result of findings is presented in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3: The prevailing sustainability practices in energy companies within and outside Nigeria.

The research shows that the five most prevailing sustainability practices in the energy sector are renewable energy, reduction of GHG emissions, environmental management, energy efficiency and corporate sustainability disclosures.

Phase 2 – Identification of impact investors in Nigerian power generation companies.

Based on the findings in section 4.2.3.1, it was necessary to determine whether there are investors in Nigeria who have invested in the power sector based on the prevailing sustainability practices above, especially renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Figure 4: Impact investors location in Nigeria (Impact Investors’ Foundation, 2020)

Figure 4 above, adapted from the Impact Investors’ Foundation report in 2020, indicated that in 2019 there were 62 impact investors in Nigeria, 30 of whom had a physical presence in Nigeria and 32 others who had no physical presence in Nigeria.  Similarly, Figure 5 (adapted from the Impact Investors’ Foundation report in 2020) indicated the different levels of impact investments in Nigeria between 2005 to 2019.

Figure 5: Impact capital deployed from January 2005 to September 2019 in Nigeria

(Impact Investors’ Foundation, 2020).

Based on these findings, the research investigated whether any part of these investments was related to funding in companies based on the implementation of renewable energy as a sustainable practice. Table 3 below evidenced that some power companies in Nigeria have received funding from impact investors for renewable energy projects. This, therefore, confirmed a relationship between sustainability practices and the attraction of investor funding in Nigeria.

Table 3: Evidence of impact funding for renewable power projects in Nigeria.

Evaluation and discussion of findings

It was discovered that the presence of a sustainability culture would attract investors to the Nigerian power generation sector. Though the data analysis was subjective as no quantitative measurements were employed, the researcher ensured that the findings fully reflected the accuracy and purpose of the research by employing the most stringent measures in data interpretation. Academic papers published between 2001 and 2021  (the era in which the concept of sustainability has become highly relevant) were utilized for data analysis. The information gathered to achieve our conclusions was pertinent to the subject and answered all research questions. The use of peer-reviewed journals, academic papers, and reliable publications from international organizations significantly enhanced the quality and dependability of the findings.

Key drivers for embracing corporate sustainability in organizations

The study highlighted six primary drivers that encourage organizations to adopt corporate sustainability: government regulation, social activism, competitive advantage, financial attractiveness, cost reduction, customers, and environmental concerns. Except for the cost reduction, the top four factors can be linked to the external environment of the business. This finding is comparable to the findings of Hahn et al. (2015) and Lozano (2015), which suggest that the external business environment (political, environmental, social, technological, economic, and legal) has a substantial impact on company sustainability. The findings agree with those of de Lange et al. (2012), and Yu & Ramanathan (2014) that the most influential external drivers of business sustainability are government regulation, social activity, and customer expectations. Although the research of Sarrakh et al. (2020) suggests a similar outcome, their findings differ in that these three external forces are categorized under three different institutional theory pressures: coercive pressure, normative pressure, and mimetic pressure, respectively. This significantly suggests that organizations are compelled to embrace sustainability initiatives.

The sixth through tenth-ranked drivers include corporate culture, brand reputation, human capital, top management commitment, profitability, business strategy, and good governance. These results are consistent with the findings of scholars such as Marková & Lesnková (2015), Vitale et al. (2019) and De Villiers et al. (2016). They have demonstrated through empirical studies on corporate sustainability drivers that organizations have internal drivers that promote corporate sustainability, such as organizational culture, top management commitment, and human capital. Our findings here, therefore, can be characterized as internal factors driving the organization’s sustainability. These findings partially agree with Saeed & Kersten (2019), who identified top management commitment, the organization’s sustainability strategy, cost-related pressure, and operational performance as internal drivers for sustainability. However, the findings of Saeed & Kersten (2019) are slightly in contrast with the current research findings as internal drivers of sustainability were classified into four major clusters: corporate strategy, organizational culture, organizational resources, and organizational characteristics. This systematic literature review not only distinguished drivers of sustainability into external and internal driver categories but also into primary and secondary driver categories. Just as Marková & Lesnková (2015), Vitale et al. (2019), and De Villiers et al. (2016) argue that without these internal drivers, organizations cannot effectively incorporate corporate sustainability, Saeed & Kersten (2019) suggest an interconnectivity between external and internal drivers of sustainability. These strongly indicate that both external and internal drivers of corporate sustainability complement each other to attain the same objective. While external drives influence organizations to change and modify their business practices, the internal drivers propel the organization’s internal dynamics to complete the adoption of corporate sustainability.

How organizations can establish a culture of sustainability

Findings from the study show that an organization can build a culture of sustainability using different approaches. The first approach entails an organizational framework of organizational structure, organizational culture, leadership, management control, employee participation, and communication (Bonini & Gorner, 2011;  Zhao et al., 2018; Gardazi et al. 2020). The second approach involves implementing sustainable practices within the firm, independent of any framework (DeBono, 2004; Slacik & Greiling, 2020; Bhandari et al., 2021). A more realistic approach comes from the third group of academics, who contend that the first two views are incomplete without each other and combine the organizational framework with adopting sustainable practices (Millar et al., 2012; Cici & D’Isanto, 2017). This draws us to the conclusion that there are different approaches to achieving a culture of sustainability and that no single approach fits all organizations. This finding is similar to that of Palacios & Rodriguez-Olalla  (2017), who corroborate the different approaches’ existence but argue that this scenario frequently creates confusion for those who wish to undertake a transition toward sustainability. Similar to how recent academic studies have proven numerous approaches for developing a culture of sustainability, the nomenclature of these methods varies.

In contrast to the current finding, Stewart et al. (2016) demonstrated that four approaches to establishing sustainability are categorized as production-oriented, product-oriented, supply-chain-oriented, and value proposition-oriented. They, however, concur that implementation should include everything from strategy to integration into daily activities. Likewise, Harré et al. (2022) agree that sustainability needs to be incorporated into the organization’s fundamental functions in developing a sustainability culture. However, they categorize their approaches as complex systems approach and people-focused systems approach. In contrast to our nomenclature, Bertels et al. (2010) assessed 127 organizations’ approaches to sustainability and came up with two distinct approaches: the informal and formal methods. The first involves experiencing and modeling good behavior (similar to our second approach). The second involves developing a framework of documentation, processes, and implementing sustainability practices (similar to our first approach).

Existence of a relationship between the implementation of sustainable business practices and investor funding in the Nigerian power generation sector.

The research revealed that the five most prevalent sustainability practices in the energy industry are renewable energy, reduced GHG emissions, environmental management, energy efficiency, and corporate sustainability disclosures. Furthermore, it demonstrated the physical and non-physical presence of impact investors in Nigeria and the various investments they have made towards the transition from fossil fuel to renewable energy in Nigeria. The investments totaled millions of United States Dollars, British Pounds, and Euros between 2005 and 2019 and beyond, as evidenced by Anyaogu et al. (2019), Isah (2019) and Edomah et al. (2021). Furthermore, the study by Onabote et al. (2021) on the significance of adopting greener energy sources has also demonstrated a long-term association between renewable energy, investor finance, and economic growth. This unequivocally demonstrates a relationship between sustainability culture and investor funding in the Nigerian power generation sector through the shift to renewable energy. The findings of Ogunlana & Ezeoha (2021), however, show a lack of commitment from the government to put necessary legal frameworks in place in Nigeria to promote renewable energy. This may dampen the interest of investors in this sector. It, therefore, shows that government has a role to play in encouraging enterprises to adopt a culture of sustainability and avail themselves of the opportunity to access funding for organizational growth.

Despite this, impact investment in Nigeria’s power production sector remains very low for various reasons. The lack of commitment to transparency and thorough reporting, the lack of awareness of this kind of financing, and the general mistrust towards nonprofits and social entrepreneurs are just a few of these challenges (Diouf, 2014; Kalu, 2017). This study highlighted that sustainability reporting is one of the energy sector’s most widely recognized sustainability practices. Organizations must begin to leverage this not only to disclose their sustainability practices but also to increase their visibility and attract investor interest. Currently, Nigeria’s sustainability reporting disclosure procedures continue to be ad hoc, nonspecific, and self-congratulatory (Uwuigbe & Jimoh, 2012). This must now be done with accurate, honest, and consistent reporting rather than greenwashing.

As a summary of the findings, it is noted that the inclusion of sustainability practices offers a comprehensive strategy for establishing a sustainability culture, the organizational framework offers the mechanisms and tools to act as internal drivers and change agents in sustainability implementation, and sustainability reporting offers information which helps to attract investors. In Figure 6, the researcher suggests a comprehensive strategy for creating a corporate sustainability culture in businesses after considering all the findings.

Figure 6: A framework for establishing sustainability culture in organizations.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusion

With the global trend on sustainability, investors have shown a significant preference for their investments. The recent growth of impact investors has seen a global trend of investors who are deliberate about investing in companies with a culture of sustainability. Considering this and the current energy challenge in Nigeria, it became imperative to investigate the ways investors can be attracted to the Nigerian power generation sector to help revamp it. Overall, this research’s main findings indicate a relationship between the sustainability culture and investor funding in the Nigerian power generation sector. Secondly, the entrenchment of a culture of sustainability in power generation companies will play a key role in attracting investors into the Nigerian power generation sector to help revamp the Nigerian economy. The research has further revealed that both internal and external drivers influence organizations to embrace sustainability. Factors such as corporate culture, brand reputation, human capital, top management commitment, and sustainability reporting were major internal drivers. Government Regulation, Social Activism, Competitive Advantage, Funding attraction, Customers, and Environmental Issues were categorized as major external drivers. In addition, organizations can establish a sustainability culture through different approaches. Finally, impact investors in Nigeria have shown a great interest in investing in technologies such as renewable energy that improve energy efficiency and reduce carbon footprints in the environment.

Consequently, the findings of this study established a new perspective of corporate sustainability and filled in some knowledge gaps in this area, particularly in the Nigerian power generation sector. While there has been extensive research on corporate sustainability, very few studies have examined the culture of sustainability in Nigeria’s power sector. There is also scant study on how companies in the Nigerian power generation sector might seek investment by adopting a culture of sustainability. The findings of this study have helped to bridge these knowledge gaps and contributed to the expanding understanding of sustainability culture, particularly as it has been demonstrated that a culture of sustainability can attract investment in the Nigerian power generation sector.

Recommendations for business application

It has become evident that the demand for business sustainability will persist. Consequently, business executives must address sustainability challenges within their firms. This is of utmost importance for enterprises in the power generation sector seeking investor participation in this area. Therefore, corporate leaders in the power generation sector need not wait until they receive regulatory punishments from the government or are picketed by social activists to consider the impact of external sustainability drivers on their businesses. The initial step in institutionalizing a culture of sustainability would be to incorporate sustainable practices within the existing organizational culture. To attain this objective however, organizational leaders must integrate sustainable practices into their organizational framework and processes. Adopting and implementing sustainable practices without integrating them into the organizational architecture and culture is likely to result in a frustrating failure.

In developing a culture of sustainability, organizational leaders in the Nigerian power generation sector should prioritize and implement only those sustainable practices that are relevant to the energy sector. These practices include the shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy, the enhancement of energy efficiency, the management of carbon footprint and environmental emissions, and corporate social responsibility. These behaviors would contribute to the development of a culture of sustainability. In addition, organizational leaders must demonstrate a commitment from top management, cascaded to all employees via company-wide rules, which will be represented in the organization’s strategy and obvious across all organizational domains.

Finally, organizational leaders must capitalize on the significance of sustainability reporting to increase the visibility of their efforts in the realm of corporate sustainability. Annually, these reports must be published and made accessible on their websites. This would facilitate public access, especially for prospective investors. In doing so, however, reports should be transparent and disclosures should be accurate and fair, representing only the actual stance of what companies are doing in terms of sustainability and not greenwashing to garner false popularity.

LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

This study has two major limiting factors which are the research limitation and the study limitation.

Research Limitation

Regarding the research limitation, the only data collection method employed was a secondary method. If this approach had been different, organizations and power generation company executives would have been surveyed for primary data. This would have resulted in more factual empirical conclusions, as the researcher would have received first-hand information on sustainability issues within these organizations.

Study Limitation

Utilizing qualitative analysis, the data analysis and interpretation were conducted. Although the conclusions of this research are valid, the use of qualitative analysis has limits due to the researcher’s inherent bias, personal assumptions, and judgment. Although the researcher attempted to minimize subjectivity, she acknowledges that empirical data analysis would have produced a more objective outcome.

In conclusion, the findings demonstrate the necessity for additional empirical research on the influence of sustainability culture in the Nigerian power generation sector. Important is the use of primary data for future empirical research, as these methods of inquiry were not utilized during the current study. However, the outcomes of this study show that these are crucial methodologies for future research on sustainability practices in Nigerian power generation businesses. This also indicates that business leaders and sustainability practitioners in the Nigerian power generation sector must actively start publishing data on sustainable practices in order to enrich the public’s access to this information.

REFERENCES

1. Alivernini, F. (2012). Mixed methods research on learning. in N. M. Seel (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. Springer US.
2. Anyaogu, I. (2018). ‘Sterling bank provides financing for solar energy projects’, Business Day. July 11 [Online]. https://archive.businessday.ng/renewables/article/%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8Bsterling-bank-provides-financing-solar-energy-projects/
3. Anyaogu, I., Oladehinde, D., Onyekwelu, S. & Adams, S.  (2019).  ‘Nigeria’ s offgrid revolution: advance of renewable energy in Nigeria’, The Nigerian Energy Report. https://www.allon.com/media/publications/_jcr_content/par/textimage_1943192789.stream/1560239896557/8df5c9fbfccfa74ffaf52c28a4ccd4ef6d90e26b/the-nigerian-energy-report-updated.pdf
4. Ashkanasy, N.M., Wilderom, C. & Peterson, M.F. (2000). Handbook of organizational culture & climate. Sage Publications.
5. Bertels, S., Papania, L. & Papania, D. (2010). ‘Embedding sustainability in organizational culture: a systematic review of the body of knowledge’, Network for business sustainability. https://embeddingproject.org/pub/resources/EP-Embedding-Sustainability-in-Organizational-Culture.pdf
6. Beslin, R. (2007). ‘Story building: A new tool for engaging employees in setting direction’, Ivey Business Journal, 71, (May/June 2007). https://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/story-building-a-new-tool-for-engaging-employees-in-setting-direction/
7. Bhandari, R., Arce, B.E., Sessa, V. & Adamou, R. (2021). ‘Sustainability assessment of electricity generation in Niger using a weighted multi-criteria decision approach’, Sustainability, 13, 385. https://doi:10.3390/su13010385
8. Bonini, S. & Görner, S. (2011). ‘The business of sustainability’, McKinsey & Company. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=sustainability+in+the+energy+industry&btnG=
9. Brundtland G.H. (1987). ‘Our Common Future’. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf
10. Busch, T., Bruce-Clark, P., Derwall, J., Eccles, R., Hebb, T., Hoepner, A., Klein, C., Krueger, P., Paetzold, F., Scholtens, B. & Weber, O. (2021). ‘Impact investments: a call for (re)orientation’, SN Business and Economics, 1(33). https://doi: 1007/s43546-020-00033-6
11. Camilleri, M.A. (2017). ‘Corporate sustainability and responsibility: creating value for business, society and the environment’, Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility, 2, 59–74. https://doi: 1186/s41180-017-0016-5
12. Cici, C. & D’Isanto, D. (2017). ‘Integrating sustainability into core business’, Symphonya, (1), 50-65. https://doi:10.4468/2017.1.05cici.disanto
13. Chipalkatti, N., Quan Vu, L. & Rishi, M. (2021). ‘Sustainability and society: do environmental, social, and governance factors matter for foreign direct investment?’, Energies, 14(19). https://doi:10.3390/en14196039
14. Collis, J. & Hussey, R. (2014). Business research: a practical guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students (4th ed.). Macmillan.
15. Crane, A. (2015). ‘Rhetoric and Reality in the Greening of Organizational Culture’, Greener Management International, 12, pp. 49-62. https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?
16. Creswell, J.W. (2009). A framework for design: research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
17. CreswellW. & Clark, V.P. (2007). Designingand conducting mixed methods research. Sage Publications.
18. DeBono, T. (2004). Integrating sustainability practices into power generation operations. Greener Management International, (46), 73-86. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/integrating-sustainability-practices-into-power/docview/211485284/
19. de Lange, D.E., Busch, T. & Delgado-Ceballos, J. (2012). ‘Sustaining sustainability in organizations’, Journal of Business Ethics, 110, 151–156. https://doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1425-0
20. De Villiers, C., Rouse, P. & Kerr, J. (2016). ‘A new conceptual model of influences driving sustainability based on case evidence of the integration of corporate sustainability management control and reporting’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 136, 78-85. https://doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.107
21. Diouf, D. (2015). Exploring the barriers to impact investing in the sustainable energy area in West Africa. in Groh, S., van der Straeten, J., Lasch B. E., Gershenson, D., Filho W. L., Kammen, D. (eds), Decentralized Solutions for Developing Economies. Springer Cham.
22. Dunphy, D.C., Griffiths, A. & Benn, S. (2003). Organizational change for corporate sustainability: a guide for leaders and change agents of the future. Routledge.
23. Edekin, E.R.J. (2021). ‘Nigeria has largest power deficit in the world yet exports electricity’ Vanguard. 21 August [Online]. https://www.vanguardngr.com/2021/08/nigeria-has-largest-power-deficit-in-the-world-yet-exports-electricity-prof-edekin/
24. Edomah, E., Ndulue, G. & Lemaire, X. (2021). ‘A review of stakeholders and interventions in Nigeria’s electricity sector’, Heliyon, 7(9), E07956. https://doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07956.
25. Eke, K. (2014). ‘Infrastructure financing of Nigeria’s power sector’, International Conference on Electronic Packaging Technology. https://powerlibrary.theelectricityhub.com/2020/03/05/infrastructure-financing-of-nigerias-power-sector/
26. Fietz, B. & Gunther, E. (2021). ‘Changing organizational culture to establish sustainability’, Controlling & Management Review, 65, pp. 32-40. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12176-021-0379-4
27. Gardazi, S.S., Hassan, A.F. & Johari, J.B. (2020). ‘Board of directors attributes and sustainability performance in the energy industry’, The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(12). pp: 317–328. https://doi:10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no12.317
28. Guay, T., Doh, J.P. & Sinclair, G. (2004). ‘Non-governmental organizations, shareholder activism, and socially responsible investments: ethical, strategic, and governance implications’, Journal of business ethics, 52(1), 125-139. https://doi:10.1023/B:BUSI.0000033112.11461.69
29. Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). ‘Competing paradigms in qualitative research’, Handbook of qualitative research, 2, 163-194. https://miguelangelmartinez.net/IMG/pdf/1994_Guba_Lincoln_Paradigms_Quali_Research_chapter.pdf
30. Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L. & Figge, F. (2015). ‘Tensions in corporate sustainability: towards an integrative framework’, Journal of Business Ethics, 127(2), 297-316. https://doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2047-5
31. Harré, N., Blythe, C., McLean, L. & Khan, S. (2022). ‘A people-focused systems approach to sustainability’, American Journal of community psychology, 69(1-2), 114-133.  https://doi:10.1002/ajcp.12550
32. Harris, L.C. & Crane, A. (2002). ‘The greening of organizational culture: Management views on the depth, degree and diffusion of change’ Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(3), 214-234. https://doi:10.1108/09534810210429273
33. Hart, S. L. & Milstein, M. B. (1999). ‘Global sustainability and the creative destruction of industries’, Sloan Management Review, 41(1), 23–33. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/246330190_Global_Sustainability_and_the_Creative_Destruction_of_Industries
34. Hatch, M. J. and Cunliffe, A. L. (2006). Organizational Theory. (2nd ed.). University Press.
35. Hox, J.J. & Boeije, H.R. (2005). ‘Data collection, primary vs. secondary’, Encyclopedia of Social Management, 1, 593-599. http://www.joophox.net/publist/ESM_DCOL05.pdf
36. Imanche, S., Ze, T., Ayom, M. & Gidado D. S. (2021). ‘An assessment of Nigerians perception towards Chinese foreign direct investments and its acceptability in Nigeria’, Open Journal of Business and Management, 9(3), 1151-1168. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351583178_An_Assessment_of_Nigerians_Perception_towards_Chinese_Foreign_Direct_Investments_and_Its_Acceptability_in_Nigeria/citation/download
37. Isah, A. (2019). ‘A tale of two countries: financing renewable energy in Nigeria and Brazil’ Conference: Energy Efficiency and Access Imperatives for Sustainable Development in Emerging Economies, 12th international conference organized by NAEE/IAEEA: PTDF Conference Center Abuja. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332593120_A_Tale_of_Two_Countries_Financing_Renewable_Energy_in_Nigeria_and_Brazil
38. Jacobs, B.L. & Brad Finney, B. (2019). ‘Defining sustainable business – beyond greenwashing’, Virginia Environmental Law Journal, 37(89). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3814666
39. Jarnagin, C., & Slocum, J. (2007). ‘Creating corporate cultures through mythopoetic leadership’, Organizational Dynamics, 36(3), 288-302. https://doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2007.04.004
40. Kalu, D. (2017). ‘Achieving developmental goals through impact investing in Nigeria’, SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi:10.2139/ssrn.3103286
41. Khan, M., Serafeim, G. & Yoon, A. (2016). ‘Corporate sustainability: first evidence on materiality’, Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 15-073. https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/14369106/15-073.pdf
42. Lee, A.H. (2021). ‘A climate for change: meeting investor demand for climate and ESG information at the securities and exchange commission’. https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/lee-climate-change
43. Lemke, T.P. & Lins, G.T. (2014). Regulation of investment advisers: securities law handbook series. Clark Boardman Callaghan.
44. Linnenluecke, M.K. & Griffiths, A. (2010). ‘Corporate sustainability and organizational culture’, Journal of World Business, 45(4), 357-366. https://doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2009.08.006
45. Logue, A.C. (2009). Socially responsible investing for dummies. John Wiley and Sons.
46. Lopez, V. & Whitehead, D. (2013). ‘Sampling data and data collection in qualitative research’. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255950308_Sampling_data_and_data_collection_in_qualitative_research
47. Loviscek, V. (2021). ‘Triple bottom line toward a holistic framework for sustainability: a systematic review’, Revista De Administração Contemporânea, 25(3), 1-11. https://doi:10.1590/1982-7849rac20212CC017.en
48. Lozano, R. (2015). ‘A holistic perspective on corporate sustainability drivers’, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22(1), 32-44. https://doi:10.1002/csr.1325
49. Marková, V. & Lesníková, P. (2015). ‘Utilization of corporate sustainability concept at selected enterprises in Slovakia’, Procedia Economics and Finance, 34, 630-637. https://doi:10.1016/S2212-5671(15)01678-0
50. Mazzucato, M. & Semieniuk, G. (2018). ‘Financing renewable energy: who is financing what and why it matters’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 127, 8-22. https://doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.021
51. Millar, C., Hind, P. & Magala, S. (2012). ‘Sustainability and the need for change: organizational change and transformational vision’, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 25(4), 489 – 500. https://doi:10.1108/09534811211239272.
52. Mitchell, C. (2002). ‘Selling the brand inside’, Harvard Business Review, 80, 99–105. https://hbr.org/2002/01/selling-the-brand-inside
53. Ngoasong, M., Korda, A. & Paton, R. (2015). ‘Impact investing and inclusive business development in Africa: a research agenda’, IKD Working Paper. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273127382_Impact_Investing_and_Inclusive_Business_Development_in_Africa_A_research_agenda
54. O’Gorman, K. & MacIntosh, R. (2015). Research methods for business & management: a guide to writing your dissertation (2nd ed.). Goodfellow Publishers Limited.
55. Ogunlana, O. & Ezeoha, M. (2021). ‘The future of renewable energy in Nigeria: charting the path for renewable energy in Nigeria’, SSRN Electronic Journal.  https://doi:10.2139/ssrn.3960313
56. O’Leary, Z. (2020). The essential guide to doing your research project. https://study.sagepub.com/oleary3e/student-resources/analysing-data/steps-in-secondary-data-analysis
57. Onabote, A., Jolaade, A., Osabohien, R., Otobo, O., Ede, C. & Okafor, V. (2021). ‘Energy sustainability, energy financing and economic growth in Nigeria international’, Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 11(1), 433-439. https://doi:10.32479/ijeep.9336
58. Oniemola, P.K. (2015). ‘Powering Nigeria through renewable electricity investments: legal framework for progressive realization’, Journal of Sustainable Development Law and Policy, 6(1). https://doi: 10.4314/jsdlp.v6i1.4
59. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L. & Rynes, S. L.  (2003). ‘Corporate social and financial performance: a meta-analysis’, Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441. https://doi:10.1177/0170840603024003910
60. Ortar, L. (2020). ‘Materiality matrixes in sustainability reporting: an empirical examination’, Journal of Strategic Innovation and Sustainability, 15(1), 118-130. https://www.academia.edu/35944361/Materiality_Matrixes_in_Sustainability_Reporting_An_Empirical_Examination
61. Oyedepo, S.O. (2012). ‘Energy and sustainable development in Nigeria: the way forward’, Energy Sustainability Society, 2(15). https://doi:10.1186/2192-0567-2-15
62. Pabian, A., Bilinska-Reformat, K. & Pabian, B. (2021). ‘Future of sustainable management of energy companies in terms of attitudes and preferences of the younger generation’, Energies, 14(11), 3207. https://doi:10.3390/en14113207
63. Palacios, C. A. & Rodriguez-Olalla, A. (2017). ‘Integrating sustainability in organisations: an activity-based sustainability model’, Sustainability, 9(6). https://doi:10.3390/su9061072
64. Pang, F. (2017). ‘Six key ESG issues in energy credits’. https://www.robeco.com/en/insights/2017/04/six-key-esg-issues-in-energy-credits.html
65. Peloza, J. (2009). ‘The challenge of measuring financial impacts from investments in corporate social performance’, Journal of Management, 35(6), 1518–1541. https://doi:10.1177/0149206309335188
66. Roche, M.Y., Verolme, H., Agbaegbu,C., Binnington, T., Fischedick, M. & Oladipo, E.O. (2020). ‘Achieving sustainable development goals in Nigeria’s power sector: assessment of transition pathways’, Climate Policy, 20(7), 846-865. https://doi: 10.1080/14693062.2019.1661818
67. Saeed, M.A. & Kersten, W. (2019). ‘Drivers of sustainable supply chain management: identification and classification’, Sustainability, 11(4), 1137. https://doi:10.3390/su11041137
68. Sarrakh, R., Renukappa, S. & Suresh, S. (2020). ‘Innovating for a sustainable future’, 34th British Academy of Management Conference, Alliance Manchester Business School, 2nd – 4th September, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom. Retrieved from https://wlv.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/2436/623361/Sarrakh_et_al_BAM_External_drivers_2020.pdf?sequence=3
69. Schein, E. H. (1984). ‘Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture’, Sloan Management Review, 25(2), 3-16. Retrieved from https://becomingaleaderblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/coming-to-a-new-awareness-of-organizational-culture-schein-1984.pdf
70. Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
71. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2015). Research methods for business students. (17th ed.). Pearson Education.
72. Scribbr (2021a). An introduction to sampling methods. Available at: https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/sampling-methods/
73. Scribbr (2021b). Credible sources and how to spot them. Retrieved from https://www.scribbr.com/citing-sources/credible-sources/
74. Senge, P. M., Carstedt, G. & Porter, P.L. (2001). ‘Innovating our way to the next industrial revolution’, MIT Sloan Management Review, 42(2), 24–38. Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b68a4e4a2772c2a206180a1/t/5cd5cd9d71c10b3196d757ac/1557515678842/MITSloanManagRev_2001_42_24.pdf
75. Slacik, J. & Greiling, D. (2020). ‘Compliance with materiality in G4-sustainability reports by electric utilities’, International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 14(3), 583-608. https://doi:10.1108/IJESM-03-2019-0010
76. Stewart, R., Bey, N. & Boks, C. (2016). ‘Exploration of the barriers to implementing different types of sustainability approaches’, Procedia CIRP, 48, 22-27. https://doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.04.063
77. Sukiennik, M. & Bąk, P. (2019). ‘The formation of organizational culture in the aspect of lean management principles in the energy industry’, E3S Web of Conferences, 108(2). https://doi:10.1051/e3sconf/201910801033
78. Tirpak, D. & Adams, H. (2008). ‘Bilateral and multilateral financial assistance for the energy sector of developing countries’, Climate Policy, 8(2), 135-151. https://doi:10.3763/cpol.2007.0443
79. Tripathy, J.P. (2013). ‘Secondary data analysis: ethical issues and challenges’ Iranian Journal of Public Health, 42(12):1478-9. www.researchgate.net/publication/278044529_Secondary_Data_Analysis_Ethical_Issues_and_Challenges
80. Ugwu, N. A., Nweke, C. C., Eze, K. K. & Ugwuoke, N. J. (2021). ‘Politics of energy sustainability and adoption of modern-day best practices: Nigeria in view’, IOP Conference Series. Earth and Environmental Science, 730(1). https://doi:10.1088/1755-1315/730/1/012007
81. Uwuigbe, U. & Jimoh, J. (2012). ‘Corporate environmental disclosures in the Nigerian manufacturing industry: A study of selected firms’, African Research Review, 6(3). https://doi:10.4314/afrrev.v6i3.5
82. Venkatraman, S. & Nayak, R. R. (2015). Relationships among triple bottom line elements: Focus on integrating sustainable business practices. Journal of Global Responsibility, 6(2), 195-214. https://doi:10.1108/JGR-04-2012-0013
83. Vitale G., Cupertino S., Rinaldi L. & Riccaboni A. (2019). ‘Integrated management approach towards sustainability: an Egyptian business case study’, Sustainability, 11(5):1244. https://doi:10.3390/su11051244
84. Wijethilake, C., Upadhaya, B. & Lama, T. (2021). ‘The role of organisational culture in organisational change towards sustainability: evidence from the garment manufacturing industry’, Production Planning & Control. https://doi:10.1080/09537287.2021.1913524.b
85. Willard, B. (2012) The new sustainability advantage: seven business case benefits of a triple bottom line. (10th ed.). New Society Publishers. https://www.proquest.com/login?accountid=188730
86. Yu W. & Ramanathan R. (2014). ‘An empirical examination of stakeholder pressures, green operations practices and environmental performance’, International Journal of Production Research, 53(21), 6390-6407. https://doi:10.1080/00207543.2014.931608
87. Zhao, C., Guo, Y., Yuan, J., Wu, M., Li, D., Zhou, Y. & Kang, J. (2018). ‘ESG and corporate financial performance: empirical evidence from China’s listed power generation companies’, Sustainability, 10(8). https://doi:10.3390/su10082607
88. Ziolo, M., Filipiak, B. Z., Bąk, I. & Cheba, K. (2019). ‘How to design more sustainable financial systems: the roles of environmental, social, and governance factors in the decision-making process’, Sustainability, 11(20). https://doi:10.3390/su11205604