Big data analytics capabilities (BDAC) and sustainability reporting on Facebook: Does tone at the top matter?

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research framework.

BDAC: Big data analytics capabilitiesSRDF: Sustainability reporting disclosure on FacebookTone at the top attributes: Certainty, Optimism, Activity, Commonality, and Realism

Table 1. Summary of measurements of research variables

Variables	Measurement	Sources
Dependent variable	SRDF index (based on a dichotomous scale for each indicator in the index, a score of 1 if the information is disclosed and 0 if otherwise (refer Appendix 1)	GRI (2015); Bursa Malaysia (2018)
Sustainability reporting disclosure on Facebook (SRDF)
Independent variable	Based on 36-items in the web-based questionnaire on a 5-point Likert scale	Gupta and George (2016); Wamba et al. (2017)
Big data analytics capabilities (BDAC)
Moderating variable	A continuous score generated by DICTION for each master variables of tone at the top (certainty, optimism, activity, commonality, and realism)	Hart (2000); Patelli and Pedrini (2015)
Tone at the top (TAT)
Control variables
Industry type (IT)	Dichotomous scale, a score of 1, if the firm belongs to the environment-sensitive category and 0 for non-environment sensitive category	Cho et al. (2010); Mokhtar (2015)
Consumer proximity (CP)	Dichotomous scale, a score of 1 if the firm belongs to a high visibility category and 0 for low visibility category	Gavana et al. (2017)
Firm age (FA)	Based on a 5-point scale with 1 indicating the smallest number of years since formation and 5 for number of years more than 50	Hahn and Kühnen (2013); Gavana et al. (2017); Aydiner et al. (2019)
Firm size (FS)	Natural logarithm of annual sales
Profitability (PF)	Return on assets (ROA)
Leverage (LV)	Gearing ratio = Total liabilities/ total debt

Table 2. Descriptive result

Elements	Mean	S.D
BDAC
BDA management capability
Planning	3.42	0.87
Coordination	3.41	0.85
Control	3.67	0.82
BDA infrastructure capability
Connectivity	3.14	0.84
Compatibility	3.38	0.79
BDA personnel capability
Technical knowledge	3.69	0.73
Technological management knowledge	3.72	0.78
Business knowledge	3.48	0.89
Data-driven sustainability culture	3.44	0.83
Tone at the top
Certainty	67.45	39.07
Optimism	53.19	2.00
Activity	50.11	1.74
Commonality	51.24	2.03
Realism	44.19	2.64
SRDF
Economic	62.88	7.70
Environment	51.29	13.49
Social	64.44	7.89

Table 3. Reliability assessment

Constructs	Factor loadings	AVE		CR	Cronbach Alpha
1^st order		0.64		0.90	0.86
Planning (PLAN)
PLAN1	0.74
PLAN2	0.82
PLAN3	0.77
PLAN4	0.84
PLAN5	0.81
Coordination and control (COD-COL)		0.57		0.89	0.85
COD1	0.80
COD2	0.73
COD3	0.73
COL1	0.80
COL2	0.75
COL3	0.71
Connectivity (CN)		0.80		0.89	0.75
CN1	0.90
CN2	0.88
Compatibility (CP)		0.57		0.79	0.62
CP1	0.78
CP2	0.86
CP3	0.59
Technical knowledge and Technological management knowledge (TK-TMK)		0.63		0.91	0.88
TK1	0.80
TK2	0.78
TK3	0.80
TMK1	0.78
TMK2	0.84
TMK3	0.76
Business knowledge and data driven sustainability culture (BK-DDSC)		0.65		0.92	0.89
BK1	0.80
BK2	0.84
BK3	0.81
DDSC1	0.82
DDSC2	0.80
DDSC3	0.76
Sustainability reporting disclosure on Facebook (SRDF)		0.74		0.89	0.82
Economic	0.89
Social	0.90
Environment	0.77
2^nd order	Factor loading		AVE		CR
BDA management capability	0.86–0.89		0.87		0.86
BDA infrastructure capability	0.85–0.88		0.87		0.86
BDA personnel capability	0.89–0.90		0.90		0.89

Table 4. Discriminant validity results

		1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1	PLAN
2	COD_COL	0.60
3	CN	0.56	0.70
4	CP	0.63	0.83	0.70
5	TK-TMK	0.48	0.79	0.59	0.83
6	BK-DDSC	0.82	0.71	0.66	0.70	0.69
7	SRDF	0.17	0.23	0.13	0.30	0.28	0.31

Table 5. Structural model results

Paths	β	t-value	p-value	Decision
H1: BDAC→SRDF	0.39	3.32	0.00	Supported
H2a: BDAC*Certainty → SRDF	0.77	2.02	0.04	Supported
H2b: BDAC*Optimism→ SRDF	−0.14	1.1	0.22	Not supported
H2c: BDAC*Activity→SRDF	−0.12	1.19	0.33
H2d: BDAC*Commonality→SRDF	0.11	0.58	0.36
H2e: BDAC*Realism→SRDF	−0.13	1.36	0.18
Control Variables
Industry type	0.08	1.21	0.37	Not supported
Consumer proximity	−0.08	0.16	0.43
Firm age	0.01	0.19	0.73
Firm size	0.03	0.46	0.73
Profitability	−0.08	0.09	0.95
Leverage	0.03	0.44	0.68
R^2	0.15

Figure 2. Simple slope analysis.

Table

	Social		Environment		Economic
1	Gender	1	Emissions	1	Procurement practices
2	Age	2	Hazardous waste	2	Create a positive social impact
3	Disability	3	Non-hazardous waste	3	Voluntary contribution to enhance socio-economic benefits
4	Ethnicity	4	Water	4	Flow of money between organisation and stakeholders
5	Freedom of opinion and expression	5	Consumption	5	Direct impact of financial transactions
6	Right to rest and leisure	6	Conservation	6	Climate related financial risk
7	Accident frequency rate	7	Intensity	7	Management trainee programs
8	Safety and health training for workers	8	Renewable energy	8	Career booths
9	Anti-competitive behaviour	9	Risk associated with biodiversity
10	Transparency	10	Habitat protection
11	Guard against forms of corruption	11	Supply chain
12	Fair treatment	12	Material
13	Development of employee’s skills and knowledge	13	Land contamination
14	Employee benefits	14	Land remediation
15	Impact on society
16	Impact on community
17	Impact on the well-being of society
18	Privacy
19	Health and safety
20	Supply chain
21	Anticipated impact of activities
22	Adherence of an organisation to relevant laws and guidelines
23	Donations
24	Charity
25	Educations/ Trainings

Malaysia, B. (2018). Sustainability Reporting Guide (2nd Edition). Bursa Malaysia.

 Google Scholar

Gupta, M., & George, J. F. (2016). Toward the development of a big data analytics capability. Information and Management, 53(8), 1049–1064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.07.004

 Google Scholar

Wamba, S. F., Gunasekaran, A., Akter, S., Ren, S., fan, J., Dubey, R., & Childe, S. J. (2017). Big data analytics and firm performance: Effects of dynamic capabilities. Journal of Business Research, 70, 356–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.009

 Google Scholar

Hart, R. P. (2000). DICTION 5.0: The text-analysis program. Sage.

 Google Scholar

Patelli, L., & Pedrini, M. (2015). Is tone at the top associated with financial reporting aggressiveness? Journal of Business Ethics, 126(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1994-6

 Google Scholar

Cho, C. H., Roberts, R. W., & Patten, D. M. (2010). The language of US corporate environmental disclosure. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(4), 431–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2009.10.002

 Google Scholar

Mokhtar, N. (2015). The extent of environmental management accounting (EMA) implementation and environmental reporting (ER) practices: Evidence from Malaysian Public Listed Companies. University of Malaya. http://studentsrepo.um.edu.my/5921/

 Google Scholar

Gavana, G., Gottardo, P., & Moisello, A. M. (2017). Sustainability reporting in family firms: A panel data analysis. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9010038

 Google Scholar

Hahn, R., & Kühnen, M. (2013). Determinants of sustainability reporting: A review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 59, 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005

 Google Scholar

Aydiner, A. S., Tatoglu, E., Bayraktar, E., Zaim, S., & Delen, D. (2019). Business analytics and firm performance: The mediating role of business process performance. Journal of Business Research, 96(October 2018), 228–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.028

 Google Scholar