51

Environmental Management Control Tools for Promoting Sustainable
Consumption and Production in Thai and Vietnamese Companies
Qi WU1*, Katsuhiko KOKUBU2 and Kimitaka NISHITANI3
1

Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Kyoto University of Advanced Science,
18 Gohanda-cho, Yamanouchi, Ukyo-ku, Kyoto 615-8577, Japan
2
Graduate School of Business Administration, Kobe University,
2-1 Rokkodai-cho, Nada-ku, Kobe 657-8501, Japan
3
Research Institute for Economics and Business Administration, Kobe University,
2-1 Rokkodai-cho, Nada-ku, Kobe 657-8501, Japan*E-mail: wu.qi@kuas.ac.jp

Abstract
Sustainable consumption and production (SCP), as one of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) (Goal
12), plays an essential role in promoting environmentally conscious management practices. There are manyenvironmental management tools that can affect the implementation of SCP and related environmental
performance, such as environmental management systems, environmental management accounting (EMA),
supply chain management and the use of environmental indicators. In addition, environmental management
control systems (EMCS), a new concept, may also be useful because it is more comprehensive. In developing
countries, identifying any of these tools as useful could promote SCP policy.
This study aimed to analyse how individual environmental management control tools promoted Thai andVietnamese companies’ SCP activities through multiple group structural equation modeling (MGSEM), basedon our questionnaire survey data. The impact of SCP activities on environmental performance was also
examined. Our results verify that it is appropriate to promote the adoption of SCP policy in companies indeveloping countries. Furthermore, when promoting SCP policy in developing countries, it is necessary torecognise that the effects of environmental management tools are not always uniform. Traditional management
tools may work against new challenges, such as the implementation of SCP, so a more diverse menu ofenvironmental management tools, including EMA, is required.
Key words: environmental management control systems, sustainable consumption and production,
Thailand, Vietnam

1. Introduction
In 2015, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development embraced a new set of sustainable
development goals (SDGs) to transform the world overthe next 15 years (United Nations, 2015). These goals arevalid not only for developed countries but also fordeveloping countries. Sustainable consumption andproduction (SCP), as one of the SDG goals (Goal 12),
plays an essential role in promoting environmentallyconscious management practices. On account of different
economic conditions and socio-cultural factors, SCP
requires a diverse focus in developed and developing
economies (Wang et al., 2019).
There are many environmental management toolsthat can affect the implementation of SCP and related
environmental performance, such as environmental
Global Environmental Research
25/2021: 051–056
printed in Japan

management systems, environmental management
accounting (EMA), eco-design, supply chain management
and the use of environmental indicators. In addition tothese tools, environmental management control systems(EMCS), as a package, could also be useful because they
are more comprehensive. The EMCS concept started fromthat of management control systems (MCS). Malmi and
Brown (2008), advocate an MCS package as a collection
or set of relatively independent management control tools
to maintain or alter patterns in organizational activities(Henri, 2006). One of the most frequently used MCS
frameworks is Merchant and Van der Stedes’ (2017)“object of control.” The mechanism of EMCS as a formof MCS is designed to guide desirable organizational
activities, especially in their environmental aspects(Nishitani et al., 2021). As the concept of EMCS is still
under nascent development, a consensus on its definition,
2021 AIRIES52

Q. WU et al.

conceptualization and operationalization remains absent
and fragmented. Thus, in this paper, we define EMCS as a
package based on the work of Merchant and Van derStede (2017) that includes four important categories ofenvironmental management control tools covering control
over action (behaviour), results (outcomes), cultural
factors and personnel. These topics have been
investigated in the context of developed countries(Guenther et al., 2016) but not in developing countries.
Identifying any of these tools or means of control as
useful could promote SCP policy in developing countries.
Even though the number of studies analysing therelationship between EMCS and environmental
performance is limited (Guenther et al., 2016; Nishitani etal., 2021), we have already examined the effectiveness of
EMCS as a package for improving environmental
performance in our previous studies in Thai andVietnamese companies (Kokubu et al., 2019; Wu et al.,2021; Nishitani et al., 2021). However, if developing
countries need to promote SCP policy for companies, itwould be desirable to identify the individual tools ormeans of control that can contribute to the results.
Therefore, in this study, we aimed to analyse how
individual environmental management control tools
impact the promotion of SCP activities in Thai andVietnamese companies based on our questionnaire survey
data. SCP activities’ impact on environmental
performance was also examined.
The remainder of this paper proceeds as follows. In
Chapter 2, we introduce the source of the data used in theanalysis and provide our analytical method. In Chapter 3,
we present the results of multiple group structural
equation modeling (MGSEM) and discuss factors related
to EMCS. Finally, we provide concluding remarks andpropose policy recommendations.

2. Data and Analytical Methods
2.1 Data
We designed a questionnaire, based on Guenther et al.
(2016), to identify the major elements of EMCS and otherenvironmental management tools.
The questionnaire survey was conducted in Thailand
from October to December 2017 and in Vietnam from
October to December 2018. The Thai stock market isbroadly divided into the MAI market (a market for small
and medium-sized enterprises, with an emphasis on future
growth potential) and the SET market (a market for large
enterprises). The questionnaire survey targeted 596
companies, excluding the financial sector. Of these, 130
companies were from the MAI market and 466 companies
were from the SET market. The questionnaire had a valid
response rate of 16.95% (SET: 78 companies; MAI: 23
companies). In Vietnam, we conducted the samequestionnaire survey of 700 listed and unlisted companies,
excluding the financial sector. Vietnam has three main

stock markets: the Ho Chi Minh Stock Exchange (HOSE),
the Hanoi Stock Exchange (HNX) and a market forunlisted public companies (UPCoM). Ultimately, 205
companies participated in the survey and the valid
response rate was 27.14% (HNX: 34 companies; HOSE:
45 companies; UPCoM: 111 companies).
Guenther et al. (2016) point out that the systems offirms can distinguish between operating systems andmanagement systems. In considering the continuum
between these two systems, three different categories ofenvironmental management can be classified: (1) the
EMA approach, (2) EMCS, and (3) environmental
management systems (EMS).
The EMA approach refers to the management ofmonetary, physical and qualitative information on theenvironmental impacts and financial consequences ofenvironmentally relevant business activities—informationthat supports internal and external decision-making,reporting and accountability (Schaltegger et al., 2003).
For example, environmental costing, material flow costaccounting and life cycle assessment for environmental
issues are accounting-based instruments that have beensuggested as loading the “EMA” factor in Table 1. Other
means of control by the EMA approach are also assumed
to include eco-product-related costing (Eco-products) andthe use of environmental indicators (UEI).
The EMCS concept differentiates among action
controls (e.g., monitoring activities and processes), results
controls (focusing on the outcomes of employee
behaviour), cultural controls (e.g., corporate culture andthe incentive system) and personnel controls (e.g.,
employee selection and training) (Guenther et al., 2016).
Action controls hold employees accountable for theiractions, prescribe desired actions and reduce personal
limitations. Results controls capture the classicalcybernetic use of environmental performance measures
via target-setting, collection of actual figures andmeasurement of the impact on incentives. Culturalcontrols capture and use a company’s value, norms anddegree of compliance. Personnel controls measureemployee selection, training and promotion, which areimportant means of control for matching job requirementswith applicants’ skills.
EMS is defined as part of an organization’s
management system, used to develop and implement its
environmental policies and manage its environmental
aspects under ISO 14001 (ISO, 2004). At this time, EMS
is considered to include two means of control:
environmental decision making (EDM) and supply chain
management (Suppliers). EDM captures the managementof environmental aspects and the fulfilment of complianceobligations, while addressing risks and opportunities.
Supply chain management consists mainly ofenvironmental measures shared with suppliers.
In summary, “EMA,” “Eco-products,” “UEI,”“Action controls,” “Results controls,” “Cultural controls,”

Environmental Management Control Tools for Promoting SCP in Thai and Vietnamese Companies

53

Table 1 Measurement constructs of environmental management control tools.
Focus
Operational level

Categories of environmental management
Environmental management accounting
Environmental management control system

Strategic level

Environmental management system“Personnel controls,” “EDM” and “suppliers” asmentioned above are included as nine separate
environmental management control tools (factors) in theanalytical model. The framework of the questionnaire wasdesigned from these nine factors (see Table 1). The
specific questions included for each factor were mainly
cited from the following eight empirical studies: Ferreira
et al. (2010), Goebel and Weissenberger (2017), Henri and
Journeault (2010), Journeault (2016), Journeault et al.
(2016), Perego and Hartmann (2009), Pondeville et al.
(2013) and Widener (2007) on a five-point Likert scale(see Table 2).
Regarding the measurement of SCP, to represent the
SCP variable, the questionnaire asked about the status of
SCP, i.e., whether the company had incorporated or wasplanning to incorporate sustainable consumption andproduction into its business activity targets (1: yes, 2: no).
We employed companies’ self-evaluation on waste
reduction as their environmental-performance-related
SCP.
2.2 Analytical Methods
The analysis conducted in this study consisted of thefollowing two steps.
In Step 1 we tested whether our data replicated theelements from EMCS and other environmental
management tools. We then conducted exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) to assess the elements of EMCS.
In Step 2, to investigate whether the elements of the
EMCS and other environmental management tools
verified in Step 1 could support the implementation of
SCP and improve environmental performance, we
employed MGSEM. Structural equation modeling (SEM)
is a powerful statistical technique that combines ameasurement model, or confirmatory factor analysis, anda structural model into a simultaneous statistical test (Hoe,
2008). It is particularly valuable in inferential data
analysis and hypothesis testing where the pattern ofinter-relationships among the study constructs are
specified a priori and grounded in established theory. It
has the flexibility to model relationships among multiple
predictor and criterion variables, and statistically tests apriori theoretical assumptions against empirical data
through CFA (Chin, 1998). In most cases, SEM is applied
to the testing of causal relationships among variables

Environmental management control tools (9 factors)° environmental management accounting (EMA)° the eco products-related costing (Eco-products)° the use of environmental indicators (UEI)° Action controls° Results controls° Cultural controls° Personnel controls° Environmental decision making (EDM)° Supply chain management (Suppliers)(Hoe, 2008). It is also possible to estimate and compare
models that come from two or more samples, called
MGSEM (Sörbom, 1974). To compare Thai andVietnamese companies, MGSEM was performed to
examine the differences between the countries’ models
using AMOS (Ver. 27.0).

3. Results and Discussion
3.1 EFA Results
EFA (principal components with promax rotation)
was performed on the questionnaire items. Hair et al.
(1995) assumed the following multiple extraction ruleswith an eigenvalue ≥ 1.0, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)
index > 0.5 (Cerny & Kaiser, 1977), and communality> 0.5 to determine factor extraction. The eigenvalue
measures how much of the variance of the observed
variables a factor explains. The value ≥1.0 explains morevariance than a single observed variable. The KMO index
ranges from 0 to 1, with 0.5 considered suitable for factor
analysis. The communality is a definition of common
variance that ranges between 0 and 1. Values closer to 1
suggest that the extracted factors explain more of thevariance of an individual item. The acceptance of each
item was decided based on a factor loading of 0.5 or more
and a difference in cross-loadings of greater than 0.2(Kaiser & Rice, 1974). As a result, eight factors weresuccessfully extracted. Table 2 presents the final
descriptive statistics for each item.
3.2 MGSEM Results
To clarify the impact of each EMCS element on SCP
and the impact of SCP on environmental performance,
MGSEM was performed with SCP and waste reduction as
the dependent variable. The independent variables were
the individual EMCS elements, Action controls, Results
controls, Cultural controls, Personnel controls, EMA,
supplier, EDM and UEI. The results are shown in Fig. 1.
The model’s fitting showed a sufficient value (χ2 = 1.758,
p < 0.001, df = 1362, CFI = 0.928, RMSEA = 0.040).
Towards the implementation of SCP in Thailand,
action controls are negatively significant and result
controls are positively significant. There are no significant
EMCA elements in Vietnam. Regarding the otherelements, only EMA is significantly positive for SCP in

54

Q. WU et al.

Table 2 EFA Results.
Items

Min. Max.

Vietnam
Mean

SD

λ

1

5

4.19

0.911

0.783

1

5

3.88

0.963

0.724

1

5

4.17

0.883

0.791

1

5

3.88

0.900

0.846

1

5

4.15

0.890

0.700

1

5

3.71

0.919

0.883

1

5

4.10

0.959

0.779

1

5

3.98

1.029

0.624

1

5

4.17

0.911

0.891

1

5

3.95

0.932

0.612

1

5

4.07

0.952

0.872

1

5

3.85

0.914

0.821

1

5

4.06

0.962

0.904

1

5

3.72

1.013

0.855

1

5

4.13

0.949

0.841

1

5

3.67

0.975

0.797

1

5

3.91

0.970

0.906

1

5

3.53

0.979

0.653

1

5

3.88

1.055

0.867

1

5

3.77

0.890

0.670

1

5

3.69

1.122

0.573

1

5

3.14

0.910

0.971

1

5

4.17

0.911

0.745

1

5

3.92

0.961

0.679

1

5

4.27

0.893

0.613

1

5

4.00

1.029

0.667

2

5

4.17

0.815

0.536

1

5

3.86

0.935

0.868

1

5

3.52

3.52

0.672

1

5

3.59

1.192

0.651

1
1
1
1

5
5
5
5

3.91
3.37
3.46
3.68

3.91
3.37
3.46
3.68

0.597
0.971
0.891
0.740

1
1
1
1

5
5
5
5

3.73
3.06
3.36
3.53

1.152
1.182
1.226
1.145

0.745
0.605
0.848
0.964

1

5

4.19

0.959

0.774

1

5

3.63

1.006

0.808

1

5

3.99

1.077

0.894

1

5

3.53

0.991

0.884

1

5

4.01

1.028

0.975

1

5

3.29

1.115

0.914

1
1

5
5

4.03
3.88

1.009
1.049

0.962
0.824

1
1

5
5

3.38
3.27

1.170
1.111

0.856
0.861

1
2

5
5

4.41
4.45

0.938
0.810

0.709
0.920

1
2

5
5

4.13
3.86

0.865
0.856

0.692
0.630

2

5

4.32

0.868

0.744

2

5

3.73

0.926

0.696

1

5

4.06

1.045

0.970

1

5

3.83

1.076

0.905

1
1
1

5
5
5

3.91
3.80
3.98

0.993
1.075
1.025

0.901
0.811
0.825

1
1
1

5
5
5

3.76
3.67
3.93

0.981
1.068
1.049

0.923
0.834
0.889

Action controls
Q1 Superiors monitor and evaluate necessary steps regarding theirsubordinates' achievement of environmental performance goals.
Q2 Superiors define the most important work steps for routine
environmental tasks.
Q3 Superiors provide subordinates with information on the mostimportant steps regarding the achievement of environmental
performance goals.
Q4 Policies and procedures manuals define the fundamental course ofenvironmental activities.
Q5 Subordinates discuss the necessary work steps for achieving theenvironmental targets with superiors
Results controls
Q7 Subordinates' achievement of environmental performance goals is
controlled by their respective superiors.
Q8 Potential deviations from environmental performance goals have to
be explained by the responsible subordinates.
Q9 Subordinates receive feedback from their superiors concerning theextent to which they achieved their environmental performance goals.
Personnel controls
Q10 Our workforce is carefully selected whether it fits to our firm's
environmental values and norms
Q11 Much effort has been put into establishing the best-suited recruiting
process for an environmental job position
Q13 The environmental goal achievement is regarded as importantcondition for promotion
Cultural controls
Q15 Our mission statement clearly communicates the firm's environmentrelated core values to our workforce.
Q16 Top managers communicate the firm's environment-related corevalues to our workforce.
Q17 Our workforce is aware of the firm's environment-related core values.
EMA
Q29 Development and use of environment-related key performanceindicators
Q30 Budgeting of environmental expenditures for operations
Q31 Life cycle assessment
Q32 Material-efficiency analysis in physical units
Q33 Material-efficiency analysis in monetary units
Suppliers
Q38 Suppliers are selected according to their level of environment
commitment.
Q39 Detailed information on environmental issues is regularly shared
between major suppliers and our firm.
Q40 We commonly see targets for the suppliers for reducing theenvironmental burden.
Q41 The environmental policy involved with suppliers is stated.
Q42 The environmental burden in supply chains can be evaluated.
EDM
Q19 Top management is actually involved in environmental management.
Q20 Environmental criteria are integrated in operational investment
decisions.
Q21 All employees are encouraged to make suggestions in the field of thenatural environment.
UEI
Q34 To monitor internal compliance with environmental policies andregulations.
Q35 To provide data for internal decision-making.
Q36 To motivate continuous improvement.
Q37 To provide data for external reporting.

Min. Max.

Thailand
Mean
SD

λ

Notes: λ denotes the factor loading in EFA.

both countries. The implementation of SCP issignificantly positively related to environmental
performance (waste reduction) in both countries.

3.3 Discussion
The results of our analysis reveal four significant
findings.
First, from the relationship between SCP andenvironmental performance (waste reduction), the results

Environmental Management Control Tools for Promoting SCP in Thai and Vietnamese Companies

55

Suppliers

χ2 = 1.7580, p < 0.001, df = 1362, CFI = 0.928, RMSEA = 0.040, SRMR = 0.0755 Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01
Fig. 1 Multiple group structural equation modeling with environmental performance.
Figures to left of arrows: Thailand (N = 86), Figures to right of arrows: Vietnam (N = 158)

indicate that the implementation of SCP can improve
environmental performance. Hence, it is appropriate topromote SCP policies at the corporate level.
Second, the results show that the role of EMA is
positively significant for the implementation of SCP indeveloping countries. Following the EFA results, thecompanies undertaking budgeting of environmental
expenditures for operations, life cycle assessment andmaterial-efficiency analysis in physical and monetary
units, particularly the use of environment-related key
performance indicators, can drive the implementation of
SCP policy. When companies implement SCP policy,
these aspects provide hints for effective policies, using
specific EMA instruments to advance environmental
management.
Third, when discussing the impact of each element of
the EMCS on SCP, the analysis does not show the same
results in Thailand as in Vietnam. Statistical significancewas observed for action controls and result controls in
Thailand but not in Vietnam. This result indicates that inVietnamese companies EMCS has not been developed tothe same degree as in Thai companies.
Fourth, regarding Thai companies, it would bereasonable to assume that action controls negatively
impact SCP implementation because these controls arevery traditional and rigorous to some extent, such as theuse of manuals and behaviour monitoring. It can beconsidered that since SCP is quite a new concept, certain
traditional and rigorous management tools would not beeffective for its purpose. In contrast, result controls
address the use of environmental performance measuresthrough target-setting, collecting actual figures, varianceanalysis and the impact on incentives as a process. As
they allow for more flexible management than action
controls, this may help them work effectively whencompanies introduce new business activities such as SCP
policy.

4. Conclusions
In this study, we used data from Thai and Vietnamesecompanies with MGSEM to examine effective
environmental management tools for promoting SCP and
improving related environmental performance. We
obtained positive results for the use of EMA in
implementing SCP and the use of SCP in environmental
performance in both countries. In addition, we confirmed
positive results from result controls and the negative
results from action controls with regard to theimplementation of SCP in Thai companies, althoughneither are statistically significant in Vietnamesecompanies.
Since the analytical results for both countries show apositive impact of SCP on environmental performance, it
is appropriate to promote companies’ adoption of SCP
policy. In Thai companies, more flexible environmental
management tools would be more effective for SCP
implementation than rigorous traditional tools. Thesefindings suggest that when promoting SCP policy indeveloping companies, it is necessary to recognise that theeffects of environmental management tools are not always
the same. Since the level of environmental management indeveloping countries generally lags behind that indeveloped countries, it is advisable to encouragecompanies’ use of basic manual environmental
management tools. However, traditional management
tools may work against new challenges, such as theimplementation of SCP, so a more diverse menu ofenvironmental management tools, including EMA, may
be required.
Acknowledgements
This paper forms part of the results of researchsupported by the Environment Research and Technology
Development Fund (JPMEERF16S11606) from theEnvironmental Restoration and Conservation Agency,

56

Q. WU et al.

Japan, and Grant-in-Aids for Scientific Research (B)19H01549 from the Japan Society for the Promotion of
Science, Japan.
References
Cerny, B.A. and Kaiser, H.F. (1977) A study of a measure ofsampling adequacy for factor-analytic correlation matrices.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 12(1): 43–47. https://doi.org/
10.1207/s15327906mbr1201_3
Chin, W.W. (1998) Issues and opinion on structural equation
modeling. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 22(1):
7–16. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.com/stable/249674(accessed 9 June 2021)
Ferreira, A., Moulang, C. and Hendro, B. (2010) Environmental
management accounting and innovation: An exploratory analysis.
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 23(7): 920–948.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513571011080180
Goebel, S. and Weissenberger, B.E. (2017) Effects of management
control mechanisms: Towards a more comprehensive analysis.
Journal of Business Economics, 87(2): 185–219.
Guenther, E., Endrikat, J. and Guenther, T.W. (2016) Environmental
management control systems: A conceptualization and a reviewof the empirical evidence. Journal of Cleaner Production, 136:
147–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.043
Hair, J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1995)
Multivariate Data Analysis (4th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall
Inc.
Henri, J.-F. (2006) Management control systems and strategy: aresource-based perspective. Accounting, Organizations andSociety, 31(6): 529–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2005.07.001
Henri, J.-F. and Journeault, M. (2010) Eco-control: The influence ofmanagement control systems on environmental and economic
performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(1):63–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2009.02.001
Hoe, S.L. (2008) Issues and procedures in adopting structural
equation modeling technique. Journal of Applied Quantitative
Methods, 3(1): 76–83.
ISO (2004) ISO 14001. Environmental Management Systems.
General Framework. ISO, Geneva.
Journeault, M. (2016) The influence of the eco-control package on
environmental and economic performance: A natural resourcebased approach. Journal of Management Accounting Research,
28(2): 149–178. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-51476
Journeault, M., De Rongé, Y. and Henri, J.-F. (2016) Levers of
eco-control and competitive environmental strategy. The British
Accounting Review, 48(3): 316–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.bar.2016.06.001
Kaiser, H.F. and Rice, J. (1974) Little jiffy, mark IV. Educationaland Psychological Measurement, 34(1): 111–117.
Kokubu, K., Wu, Q., Nishitani, K., Tongurai, J. and Pochanart, P.
(2019) Comprehensive environmental management control
system and stakeholder influences: Evidence from Thailand. In:
Kokubu, K. and Nagasaka, Y. (eds.) Sustainability Management
and Business Strategy in Asia. World Scientific, 131–148.
Malmi, T. and Brown, D.A. (2008) Management control systems asa package: opportunities, challenges and research directions.
Management Accounting Research, 19(2): 287–300. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.mar.2008.09.003
Merchant, K.A. and Van der Stede, W.A. (2017) Management
control systems: Performance measurement, evaluation andincentives (4th ed.). Pearson Education.
Nishitani, K., Nguyen, T.B.H., Trinh, T.Q., Wu, Q. and Kokubu, K.
(2021) Are corporate environmental activities to meet sustainable
development goals (SDGs) simply greenwashing? An empirical
study of Vietnamese companies from the stakeholder
management perspective, Kobe University RIEB Discussion
Paper Series, DP2021-12.
Perego, P. and Hartmann, F. (2009) Aligning performancemeasurement systems with strategy: The case of environmental
strategy. Abacus, 45(4): 397–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

6281.2009.00297.x
Pondeville, S., Swaen, V. and De Rongé, Y. (2013) Environmental
management control systems: The role of contextual and strategic
factors. Management Accounting Research, 24(4): 317–332.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2013.06.007
Schaltegger, S., Burritt, R.L. and Petersen, H. (2003) An
Introduction to Corporate Environmental Management: Strivingfor Sustainability, Greenleaf Publishing Limited, Sheffield.
Sörbom, D. (1974) A general method for studying differences infactor means and factor structures between groups. British
Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 27:
229–239.
United Nations (2015) Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development, Resolution adopted by the General
Assembly.
Wang, C., Ghadimi, P., Lim, M.K. and Tseng, M.-L. (2019) A
literature review of sustainable consumption and production: A
comparative analysis in developed and developing economies.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 206: 741–754. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.172
Widener, S.K. (2007) An empirical analysis of the levers of control
framework. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7-8):
757–788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2007.01.001
Wu, Q., Kokubu, K., Trinh, T.Q., Nguyen, T.B.H. and Nishitani, K.
(2021) Environmental management control systems indeveloping countries: Towards achievement of SDGs and SCP in
Vietnam, Kobe University Graduate School of Business
Administration Discussion. Paper: 2021–2019.

Qi WU
Qi Wu is a junior associate professor at theFacultyof
Economics
andBusiness
Administration, Kyoto University of Advanced
Science, Japan, a post she has held since 2019.
She received her Ph.D. in businessadministration at the Graduate School ofBusiness Administration, Kobe University, Japan
in 2018. Her research field is sustainability management andenvironmental accounting. Her recent research works on subjects such asenvironmental management control systems and environmental
management accounting.

Katsuhiko KOKUBU
Katsuhiko Kokubu is a professor of social andenvironmental accounting at the Graduate
School of Business Administration, Kobe
University, Japan. He completed his Ph.D. inmanagement at Osaka City University. He is aleading scholar in sustainable management andaccounting and has been heading international standardization of material
flow cost accounting (MFCA) as a convener for ISO/TC207/WG8. He
published more than 30 books and 200 papers (in English and Japanese)
published by leading journals. His latest English book is Sustainability
Management and Business Strategy in Asia, World Scientific, 2019.

Kimitaka NISHITANI
Kimitaka Nishitani is a professor of corporate
sustainability management at the ResearchInstitute for Economics and Business
Administration, Kobe University, Japan. He
received his Ph.D. in business administrationfrom Kobe University. His research interests
cover a wide range of topics in corporate sustainability management,
including social and environmental sustainability reporting.

(Received 9 June 2021, Accepted 17 August 2021)