Sustainability disclosure in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries: Opportunities and Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) performance of 117 companies across Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Qatar from 2021 to 2022 (totaling 234 observations) from the institutional theory perspective using a mixed methods approach. The research is structured in two stages: First, we analyzed ESG scores from ESG Refinitiv data to measure ESG performance based on 186 comparable metrics across 10 categories; second, we conducted a directed content analysis of sustainability reports that utilized 27 ESG disclosure indicators from the GCC Exchanges Committee's unified guidance. Integrating quantitative ESG scores with qualitative content analysis enables a deeper understanding of how companies in these Gulf countries respond to institutional pressures within their unique socio-political contexts. Our findings revealed that while ESG performance has generally improved across the three countries, the extent and nature of these improvements vary significantly. The UAE demonstrates the most substantial progress, particularly in environmental performance, driven by robust institutional frameworks and alignment with global sustainability standards. Saudi Arabia shows moderate improvements, reflecting the influence of Vision 2030 and ongoing reforms. In contrast, Qatar lags, especially in governance and social performance, due to weaker regulatory frameworks and slower internalization of sustainability norms. We found that the effectiveness of ESG improvements are closely tied to the strength of institutional frameworks, the intensity of external pressures, and the degree of internalization of sustainability norms in each country. It underscores the role of coercive, normative, and mimetic pressures in driving corporate disclosure practices. It highlights the complexities of sustainability reporting across sectors and national contexts in the GCC region. The research contributes to understanding how institutional pressures shape corporate sustainability practices in the Gulf region, offering valuable insights for policymakers, practitioners, and scholars interested in the dynamics of ESG and sustainability in emerging markets.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".