Volume 10, Issue 1, January – 2025 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology

ISSN No:-2456-2165 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14769384

Assessing the Impact of Firm Innovativeness on

Environmental Disclosure among Listed Non-
Financial Companies in Nigeria

Isah, Baba Bida1; Aliyu, Usman Baba2; Sanni, Mubarak3

Hassan, Ibrahim4 ; Sayuti, Abdullahi Shafii5*
1234
Department of Accounting, Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida University, Lapai, Nigeria
5
*Department of Economics, Federal University, Birnin Kebbi
*Corresponding Author: Sayuti, Abdullahi Shafii

Publication Date: 2025/02/01

Abstract: This study examines the effects of firm innovativeness on environmental disclosure using robust statistical
modeling. The findings reveal that firm complexity negatively influences environmental disclosure, suggesting that higher
firm complexity hinders effective environmental reporting. In contrast, technological infrastructures, research and
development (R&D), and firm size positively and significantly impact environmental disclosure, highlighting the critical
roles of innovation, technological capacity, and resource availability in fostering environmental transparency. Managerial
efficiency shows a positive statistically significant effect. The study concludes by recommending simplification of
organizational structures, investment in technology and R&D, leveraging the resources of larger firms, and enhancing
managerial training to improve environmental disclosure practices. These insights offer valuable guidance for
policymakers, corporate leaders, and researchers aiming to enhance sustainability reporting and transparency.

How to Cite: Isah, Baba Bida; Aliyu, Usman Baba; Sanni, Mubarak; Hassan, Ibrahim; Sayuti, Abdullahi Shafii (2025). Assessing
the Impact of Firm Innovativeness on Environmental Disclosure among Listed Non-Financial Companies in Nigeria.
International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology, 10(1), 1346-1352.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14769384

I. INTRODUCTION Firm innovativeness has been identified as a key driver

of environmental disclosure. Innovative companies are more
The increasing awareness of environmental issues and likely to adopt sustainable practices and disclose their
the role of businesses in mitigating their impact on the environmental performance. Innovativeness enables
environment have led to growing demands for companies to companies to develop new products, services, and processes
disclose their environmental performance. Environmental that reduce their environmental impact. It also enables
disclosure is the process of providing stakeholders with companies to respond to changing environmental regulations
information about a company's environmental performance, and stakeholder expectations.
policies, and practices. It is an essential aspect of corporate
social responsibility (CSR) and sustainability reporting. However, there is a paucity of research on the impact
of firm innovativeness on environmental disclosure in
In Nigeria, the need for environmental disclosure has Nigeria. Most studies on environmental disclosure in
become more pressing due to the country's vulnerability to Nigeria have focused on the oil and gas industry, with little
environmental degradation. The oil and gas industry, which attention paid to non-financial companies. This study aims
is a significant contributor to Nigeria's economy, have been to fill this gap by investigating the impact of firm
criticize for its environmental impact. Despite the innovativeness on environmental disclosure of listed non-
importance of environmental disclosure, many companies in financial companies in Nigeria.
Nigeria, particularly non-financial companies have been
criticize for their lack of transparency and accountability in II. LITERATURE REVIEW
their environmental reporting. A study by the Nigerian
Stock Exchange (NSE) found that only 12% of listed Theoretical literature on the impact of firm
companies in Nigeria provide environmental information in innovativeness on environmental disclosure of listed non-
their annual reports. financial companies in Nigeria is rooted in several
conceptual frameworks. Some key theories are Stakeholder
Theory which posits that companies have a responsibility to

IJISRT25JAN844 www.ijisrt.com 1346

Volume 10, Issue 1, January – 2025 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14769384

disclose environmental information to stakeholders, Likewise, using an empirical evidence of Malaysian

including shareholders, customers, and the wider SMEs, Rasit et al., (2019) examined the green supply chain
community. Also, Legitimacy Theory suggests that management (GSCM) practices for sustainability
companies disclose environmental information to legitimize performance. He applied sustainability performance,
their operations and maintain social license. Furthermore, environmental management system, and green supply chain
Signaling Theory proposes that companies use management as variables. The study adopted survey
environmental disclosure as a signal to stakeholders about research design and the data collected was analysed using
their commitment to sustainability and environmental resource-based view (RBV) model. Findings from this
responsibility. Agency Theory suggests that environmental research suggest that GSCM practices positively influence
disclosure is influence by the agency relationship between sustainability performance.
managers and shareholders, with managers disclosing
environmental information to reduce agency costs. Also, Ahmed, Ashraf, Khan, Kusi-Sarpong et al.,
Institutional Theory proposes that environmental disclosure (2020) analyzed the impact of environmental collaboration
is influence by institutional pressures, including regulatory among supply chain stakeholders on a firm’s sustainable
requirements, industry norms, and stakeholder expectations.⁵ performance. They adopted green supply chain, supplier
collaboration; customer collaboration; environmental
 Empirical Studies performance, organizational performance as variable, the
Bello et al., (2021) examined the influence of board study employed survey research design. The result indicates
dynamics on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) significant and positive impacts of institution pressure and
practices in listed non-financial firms in Nigeria. Utilizing a customer monitoring on the adoption of green supply chain
Generalized Least Square estimation technique, the study management (GSCM) practices by organizations.
found that while board financial expertise and size positively
impact ESG practices, the industry knowledge of Exploring the nexus among green supply chain
independent directors has an insignificant positive effect. management, environmental management, and sustainable
These findings highlight specific board attributes that could performance, Marri et al., (2021) examined the mediating
drive improved ESG practices in Nigeria's non-financial role of environmental management. Using a survey research
sector. design, the study employed Kendall's tau correlation
coefficients and Cronbach alpha statistic. Adopting green
Similarly, Ye et al., (2022) investigated how green supply chain management, environmental management and
organizational strategy and environmental CSR affect sustainable performance as variables. The study concludes
organizational sustainable performance through green that green purchasing overall acts as a mediating factor
technology innovation amid COVID-19. Exploring survey between the association of operational performance and eco-
research design, the study adopted structural equation design.
modeling. Using environmental CSR, organizational
sustainable performance, green technology innovation and Also, Bello et al., (2021) examined the effect of Board
green organization strategy as variables. The findings Dynamics on Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)
revealed that GOS has a strong positive effect on ECSR, Practices of Listed Non-Financial Firms in Nigeria. The
GTI, and OSP. Further, ECSR has a strong positive impact study employed an ex-post-facto research design and the
on GTI and OSP. method of data analysis employed is the Generalized Least
Square data estimation technique. The finding reveals that,
More so, Xu et al., (2022) pathways to sustainable independent director’s industry knowledge has an
development: corporate digital transformation and insignificant positive influence on ESG practices; while
environmental performance in China. Adopting corporate board financial expertise and board magnitude have a
digital transformation, environmental performance, green significant positive effect on ESG practices of listed non-
technology innovation, corporate governance, and financial firms in Nigeria.
sustainable development as variables. The study explored
mixed research design using descriptive and inferential. The Likewise, Bello et al., (2021) examined the effect of
result shows that corporate digital transformation has board dynamics on environmental, social and governance
effectively curbed environmental pollution emissions and (ESG) practices of listed non-financial firms in Nigeria. The
improved environmental performance. study employed an ex-post-facto research design and
utilized is the Generalized Least Square data estimation
Pechancová et al., (2019) examined environmental technique. The finding reveals that, independent director’s
management systems using an effective tool of corporate industry knowledge has an insignificant positive influence
sustainability. Using mixed research design, the study on ESG practices, while board financial expertise and board
adopted mature environmental management system, magnitude have a significant positive effect on ESG
corporate environmental policy, environmental behavior, practices of listed non-financial firms in Nigeria.
and sustainability as variables. Adopting instrumental
variables approach, the findings underscore the critical role
of the management strategy approach and stakeholder
requirements´ monitoring.

IJISRT25JAN844 www.ijisrt.com 1347

Volume 10, Issue 1, January – 2025 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14769384

III. METHODOLOGY manufacturing company on the Nigerian Stock Exchange as

at December 31, 2022. Sample size was calculated using
The ex-post facto research design was used in this formula by Krejcie and Morgan (1970). the study employed
study. Data was collected from every non-financial company stratified random sampling techniques to determine the
listed on the Nigeria Stock Exchange as of December 31, specific sample size for each sector. Table 1 shows the
2022. The unit of analysis in this study is quoted breakdown of the sampling and the sample size

Table 1: Sample Size and Sampling Technique

S/N Sector Population Sample Size
1 Healthcare 9 9/75*49 6
2 Natural Resources 4 4/75*49 3
3 Construction/Real Estate 9 9/75*49 6
4 Conglomerates 7 7/75*49 4
5 Oil and Gas 13 13/75*49 8
6 Consumer Goods 21 21/75*49 14
7 Industrial Goods 13 13/75*49 8
Total 76 49 49

 Model Specification 𝐹𝑆𝑖𝑡 = Firm Size “i” firm and time “t”
The model adapted the framework proposed by 𝛽0 = Intercept
Oluwatoyin et al. (2021), with adjustments made to align 𝛽1 − 𝛽5 = coefficient of slop or regression coefficient
with the specific objectives and requirements of the current 𝜇𝑖𝑡 = error term
investigation, using Environmental Disclosure as the
dependent variable. This refined approach facilitates a more The a priori expectation for this model is that all
focused examination of the interactions between a independent variables—Firm Complexity (FC),
company's innovative initiatives and its practices related to Technological Infrastructure (TI), Research and
environmental disclosures. Therefore, the modified versions Development (R&D), Managerial Efficiency (ME), and
of the decomposed model are presented as follows: Firm Size (FS)—will have positive relationships with
Environmental Disclosures (EnD). This implies that as firm
𝐸𝑛𝐷𝑖𝑡 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 𝐹𝐶𝑖𝑡 + 𝛽2 𝑇𝐼𝑖𝑡 + 𝛽3 𝑅&𝐷𝑖𝑡 + 𝛽4 𝑀𝐸𝑖𝑡 + complexity increases, technological infrastructure improves,
𝛽5 𝐹𝑆𝑖𝑡 + 𝜇𝑖𝑡 ………………….. 3.3 R&D efforts expand, managerial efficiency strengthens, and
firm size grows, the level of environmental disclosures is
Where: also expected to rise. Specifically, we anticipate that: 𝛽1 > 0
𝐸𝑛𝐷𝑖𝑡 = Environmental Disclosures “i” firm and time “t” (Firm Complexity), 𝛽2 > 0 (Technological Infrastructure),
𝐹𝐶𝑖𝑡 = Firms Complexity “i” firm and time “t” 𝛽3 > 0 (Research and Development), 𝛽4 > 0 (Managerial
𝑇𝐼𝑖𝑡 = Technological Infrastructures “i” firm and time “t” Efficiency), and 𝛽5 > 0 (Firm Size). Overall, these factors
𝑅&𝐷𝑖𝑡 = R&D Research and Development “i” firm and time are hypothesized to positively influence environmental
“t” disclosures.
𝑀𝐸𝑖𝑡 = managerial efficiency “i” firm and time “t”

IJISRT25JAN844 www.ijisrt.com 1348

Volume 10, Issue 1, January – 2025 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14769384

IV. DATA PRESENTATION

Table 2 presents the descriptive outcome of the environmental disclosure and firm innovativeness indicators across non-
financial companies

Table 2: Summary Analysis of the Variables Included in the Model

Variables Obs. Mean Std. Dev. Minimum Maximum
EnD 634 0.417 0.228 0 2
FC 634 2.516 0.670 1 4
TI 634 0.761 0.448 0 2
R&D 634 0.546 0.498 0 1
ME 634 1.188 1.081 0.02 12.76
FS 634 10.172 1.020 0.94 12.96
Source: Author’s Computation, 2024:

Explanatory Notes:, EnD is Environmental Disclosure, , FC is Firms’ Complexity, TI is Technological Infrastructures, R&D is
Research and Development, ME is Managerial Efficiency, and FS is Firm Size

The study proceeded to describe environmental disclosure, which has an average value of 0.417 with a standard deviation of
0.228, indicating that environmental disclosure values are not far off from the average value. The minimum value of
environmental disclosure is 0, while the maximum value is 2.

 Preliminary Estimation Techniques

Table 3, 4 and 5 shows the preliminary estimation techniques such as Multicollinearity Test, unit root test and correlation
matrix with correlation coefficients, and their respective p-values which were utilized in scrutinizing the distribution of individual
variables.

Table 3: Pairwise Correlation Matrix

Variables EnD FC TI R&D ME FS
ED 1

FC 0.463 (0.000) 1
TI 0.573 (0.000) -0.114 (0.003) 1
R&D -0.172 (0.000) 0.092 (0.019) 0.041 (0.307) 1
ME 0.007 (0.862) 0.103 (0.009) 0.028 (0.478) 0.083 (0.037) 1
FS 0.136 (0.001) -0.035 (0.373) 0.198 (0.000) -0.301 (0.000) 0.0239 (0.548) 1
Source: Author’s Computation, 2024

Table 3 reveals that environmental disclosure is positive related with social disclosure, sustainability reporting index,
research and development, and firm size with coefficients of correlation of 0.463, 0.573, 0.136, and 0.212 respectively with
associated p-values of 0.000 in each case except for R&D with p-value of 0.001. On the other hand, it is negative related with
firms’ complexity with coefficient of correlation of -0.172 with an associated p-value of 0.000, while it is not correlated with
technological infrastructure and managerial efficiency as indicated by their respective p-values.

Table 4: Multicollinearity Test (VIF and Tolerance)

Variables VIF Tolerance
Firms’ Complexity (FC) 1.03 0.967
Technological Infrastructure (TI) 1.07 0.936
Research and Development (R&D) 1.13 0.884
Managerial Efficiency (ME) 1.02 0.981
Firm Size (FS) 1.16 0.863
Average VIF 1.08
Source: Author’s Computation, 2024

The multicollinearity test for the independent variables (predicators) as presented in Table 4 indicated that all the predicators
had VIF less than 5. The highest was 1.16, which is firm size. Meanwhile, the tolerance in all the predicators was observed to be
greater than 0.1. This therefore indicated that there was no threat of multicollinearity.

IJISRT25JAN844 www.ijisrt.com 1349

Volume 10, Issue 1, January – 2025 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14769384

Table 5: Fisher-type Unit Root Test

Variables P Z L* Pm Order of Integration
EnD 63.0208 -3.2363 -3.3136 -2.4985 I(1)
FC 22.8154 -2.2244 -2.4435 -5.3703 I(1)
TI 269.5380 -8.6949 -13.6061 12.2527 I(0)
R&D 93.4047 -6.9142 -8.6068 -0.3282 I(1)
ME 390.5296 -10.4970 -14.3467 20.8950 I(0)
FS 336.2351 -7.4434 -9.7971 17.0168 I(0)
Source: Author’s Computation, 2024

Table 5 confirms that all study variables are either stationary at level (I(0)) or at first difference (I(1)), making them
appropriate for dynamic panel data analysis. The Fisher-type unit root test shows a mix of I(0) and I(1) variables, with none
classified as I(2). Firm complexity, technological infrastructure, managerial efficiency, and firm size are stationary at level (I(0)),
allowing for direct regression analysis. Conversely, economic disclosure and research and development are stationary at first
difference (I(1)), requiring differencing for stationarity. Overall, the high test statistics strongly reject the null hypothesis of a unit
root, reinforcing the robustness of the econometric analyses.

Table 6 Estimates of the Models on the Effect of Firm innovativeness, Managerial Dynamics on Environmental Disclosure
(EnD) with Robust Standard Error
Variable Coefficient T p-value
FC -0.067 -18.20 0.000
TI 0.043 3.00 0.003
R&D 0.111 5.92 0.000
ME 0.009 1.69 0.091
FS 0.065 7.37 0.000
Constant -0.117 -1.27 0.203

R-squared 0.131
Wald Chi-Squared 975.55 0.000
Source, Author’s Computation (2024)
FC is Firms’ Complexity, TI is Technological Infrastructures, R&D is Research and Development, ME is Managerial Efficiency,
and FS is Firm Size

Table 6 shows that the random effects model accounts effectively engage in environmental disclosure due to
for 13.1% of the variation in environmental disclosure, with challenges in coordination and resource allocation.
an R-squared value of 0.131. The Wald Chi-Squared statistic
of 975.55 (p < 0.001) confirms the model's significance. The positive influence of technological infrastructures
Findings indicate that firm complexity (-0.067, p < 0.000) in this study aligns with the argument that technology
and technological infrastructure (0.043, p = 0.003) positively facilitates transparency and compliance with environmental
impact environmental disclosure, while research and regulations. Also, Firms with better technological
development (0.111, p < 0.000), managerial efficiency infrastructures are more likely to engage in environmental
(0.009, p < 0.091) and firm size (0.065, p < 0.000) positively disclosure, which align with García-Sánchez et al. (2016)
influence it. Specifically, a one-point increase in firm and Adams & McNicholas (2007) suggests that advanced
complexity decreases environmental disclosure by 0.067 technological infrastructures enable firms to better track and
points, and an increase in technological infrastructure report their environmental impacts.
decreases it by 0.043 points. In contrast, a one-percentage
point increase in research and development raises The significant positive effect of R&D found is
environmental disclosure by 0.111 points, while an increase consistent with research linking innovation with enhanced
in firm size leads to a 0.065 point increase. sustainability efforts. The study supported by Clarkson et al.
(2011) and Berrone et al. (2013) highlight that firms
V. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS investing in R&D often pursue innovation that aligns with
sustainability goals, leading to improved environmental
This study's finding that firm complexity negatively practices and disclosures.
affects environmental disclosure supports the notion that
increased complexity might lead to inefficiencies in Managerial efficiency has a positive but statistically
sustainability reporting. This are in line with the work of Li insignificant effect on environmental disclosure. This
et al. (2018) and De Villiers et al. (2014) indicate that suggests its influence might not be substantial or consistent.
organizational complexity can hinder the ability of firms to

IJISRT25JAN844 www.ijisrt.com 1350

 Volume 10, Issue 1, January – 2025 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14769384

The positive and significant effect of firm size in this firm’s sustainable performance. Operations
study reinforces the well-documented relationship between Management Research.
firm size and disclosure practices. Larger firms are more https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-020-00152-1
likely to engage in or report on environmental practices, [3]. Bello, M. B., Fodio, M. I., & Alhassan, A. S. (2021).
likely due to greater resources or public scrutiny. The Effect of Board Dynamics on Environmental, Social
findings are in line with prior research by Patten (2002), and Governance (ESG) Practices of Listed Non-
Prado-Lorenzo et al. (2009), and Kolk (2003) shows that Financial Firms in Nigeria.Fulafia Journal of
larger firms are more likely to disclose environmental Entrepreneurial Development, 1(1).
information due to greater public scrutiny, regulatory [4]. Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A., Gelabert, L., & Gomez-Mejia,
pressures, and resource availability. L. R. (2013). Necessity as the mother of "green"
inventions: Institutional pressures and environmental
VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS innovations. Strategic Management Journal, 34(8),
891-909.
The study explores the impact of firm innovativeness, [5]. Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D., & Vasvari,
managerial dynamics on environmental disclosure (EnD). F. P. (2011) Does it really pay to be green?
The findings reveal that Firm complexity negatively impacts Determinants and consequences of proactive
on environmental disclosure, while Technological environmental strategies. Journal of Accounting and
infrastructures and R&D significantly enhance Public Policy, 30(2), 122-144.
environmental disclosure. The Firm size and Managerial [6]. De Villiers, C., Rinaldi, L., & Unerman, J. (2014)
efficiency also has positive influence on environmental Integrated reporting: Insights, gaps, and an agenda for
disclosure. Based on the findings from this study, the future research. Accounting, Auditing &
following are recommend: Accountability Journal, 27(7), 1042-1067.
[7]. García-Sánchez, I. M., Rodríguez-Ariza, L., & Frías-
Firms should reduce operational and reporting Aceituno, J. V. (2016) Does technological environment
complexities to streamline environmental disclosure promote corporate transparency? The mediating effect
processes. This will be achieving by adopting standardized of the stakeholder engagement. Information Systems
frameworks for sustainability reporting, such as GRI (Global Management, 33(4), 320-337.
Reporting Initiative); [8]. Hahn, R., & Kühnen, M. (2013) Determinants of
sustainability reporting: A review of results, trends,
In addition, Organizations should prioritize theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of
investments in advanced technologies, such as data analytics research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 59, 5-21.
and automated reporting tools, to improve the accuracy and [9]. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining
efficiency of environmental reporting; sample size for research activities. Educational and
psychological measurement, 30(3), 607-610.
Furthermore, policymakers and firms should focus on [10]. Kolk, A. (2003) Trends in sustainability reporting by
fostering R&D initiatives that integrate environmental goals. the Fortune Global 250. Business Strategy and the
Tax incentives or subsidies for eco-friendly innovations can Environment, 12(5), 279-291.
motivate firms to enhance their sustainability efforts; [11]. Li, Y., Gong, M., Zhang, X.-Y., & Koh, L. (2018) The
impact of environmental, social, and governance
Beside, larger firms should use their financial and disclosure on firm value: The role of CEO
operational advantages to set benchmarks for environmental power.International Journal of Production Economics,
disclosure. Regulators should encourage smaller firms to 200, 12-23.
emulate best practices observed in larger organizations; and [12]. Marri, M. Y. K., Sarwat, N., Aqdas, R., & Nadeem, S.
(2021). Exploring the nexus among green supply chain
Moreover, managerial efficiency has shown an management, environmental management, and
insignificant effect, enhancing managerial capacity in sustainable performance: the mediating role of
sustainability-related decision-making can indirectly environmental management. Journal of Contemporary
improve environmental disclosure. Firms can achieve this Issues in Business and Government, 27(02).
through training and incorporating sustainability into https://doi.org/10.47750/cibg.2021.27.02.201
performance evaluations. [13]. Rasit, Z. A., Zakaria, M., Hashim, M., Ramli, A., &
Mohamed, M. (2019). Green Supply Chain
REFERENCES Management (GSCM) Practices for Sustainability
Performance: An Empirical Evidence of Malaysian
[1]. Adams, C. A., & McNicholas, P. (2007) Making a SMEs. International Journal of Financial Research,
difference: Sustainability reporting, accountability, and 10(3), 371. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijfr.v10n3p371
organizational change. Accounting, Auditing & [14]. Pechancová, V., Hrbáčková, L., Dvorský, J.,
Accountability Journal, 20(3), 382-402. Chromjaková, F., & Stojanovic, A. (2019).
[2]. Ahmed, W., Ashraf, M. S., Khan, S. A., Kusi-Sarpong, Environmental management systems: an effective tool
S., Arhin, F. K., Kusi-Sarpong, H., & Najmi, A. of corporate sustainability. Entrepreneurship and
(2020). Analyzing the impact of environmental Sustainability Issues, 7(2), 825–841.
collaboration among supply chain stakeholders on a https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2019.7.2(3)

IJISRT25JAN844 www.ijisrt.com 1351

Volume 10, Issue 1, January – 2025 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14769384

[15]. Prado-Lorenzo, J. M., Gallego-Alvarez, I., & Garcia-

Sanchez, I. M. (2009) Stakeholder engagement and
corporate social responsibility reporting: The
ownership structure effect. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16(2),
94-107.
[16]. Xu, P., Chen, L., & Dai, H. (2022). Pathways to
sustainable development: corporate digital
transformation and environmental performance in
china. Sustainability, 15(1), 256.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010256
[17]. Ye, M., Hao, F., Shahzad, M., & Kamran, H. W.
(2022). How Green Organizational Strategy and
Environmental CSR Affect Organizational Sustainable
Performance Through Green Technology Innovation
Amid COVID-19. Frontiers in Environmental Science,
10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.959260

IJISRT25JAN844 www.ijisrt.com 1352