INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue II, February 2025
www.ijltemas.in Page 10
The Influence of Green Technology, Environmental Disclosure and
Green Intellectual Capital on Stock Returns
Adi Nurpermana
1
, Yvonne Augustine
2
1
University of Trisakti, Indonesia
2
Department of Accounting Trisakti University, Indonesia
DOI : https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2025.1402002
Received: 12 February 2025; Accepted: 17 February 2025; Published: 26 February 2025
Abstract:
Purpose –Company performance can be measured in terms of financial and non-financial. Shareholders are motivated to invest their capital
in the hope of getting a return in accordance with the capital invested. Indonesia is currently in a dilemma with a knowledge-based, fast-
changing and technology-based economy. Most companies use technology to improve the efficiency of company activities and reduce costs
incurred. Issues related to the environment and the adoption of green technology have received much attention over the past few years. The
purpose of this study is to determine the relationship between Green technology, environmental disclosure and green intellectual capital on
stock returns
Design/methodology/approach –The type of data in this study is secondary data. The samples used in the study were Basic Materials and
Transportation & Logistic companies with a sample size of 267.
Findings –The results show no effect of green technology on stock returns. There is a significant negative relationship between Green
Intellectual Capital and stock returns. While environmental disclosure has a significant positive effect on stock returns.
Research limitations/implications –In developing countries, no statistically relevant relationship was found between fair valuation and
earnings quality, which may be due to the adoption of IFRS and the lack of experience in fair valuation, or more generally, the very low
influence of IFRS regulations on local accounting practices.
Originality/value –In this paper, researchers use clear technology to measure green technology that has not been used by previous
researchers.
Keywords: Green Technology, Environmental Disclosure, Green Intellectual Capital, Stock Returns
I. Introduction
Companies in Indonesia are currently in a dilemma with a knowledge-based, fast-changing and technology-based economy. Most companies
use technology to improve the efficiency of company activities and reduce costs. Issues related to the environment and the adoption of green
technology have received much attention in recent years. According to a McKinsey Quarterly November 2019 global survey, 41% of senior
executives in the US and 53% in Europe believe that environmental issues will have a major impact on shareholder value over the next 5
years. In this situation, managers need to decide whether their companies should adopt environmentally friendly technologies that will
reduce emissions but may require large initial investments and/or increased production costs.
In recent years, there has been a steady increase in the volume of sustainability disclosures by companies. (Huang, et al. 2014). Investors
need information to assess a company's capabilities and performance before making investment decisions. (Sugiyanto et al, 2020) As a
consequence, business entities as members of society are expected to be able to solve or overcome problems. social and environmental in
such a way that aims to add value to society (Luning, et al. 2012). Thus, corporate sustainability disclosure aims to improve financial
performance, attract the best employees and inspire leaders. (Guarnieri, et al. 2008).
Contemporary businesses are regularly changing due to new risks and challenges related to ethical, social and environmental issues. (Grubor
et al. 2020). Stakeholder awareness interest in corporate social responsibility has increased. Companies, governments,
Regulatory authorities, investors and consumers around the world are paying more attention to environmental sustainability issues.
(Gregory-Smith et al. 2017). Society around the world is very concerned in recognizing that companies are truly committed to environmental
protection from issues such as emissions, climate change, contamination, and other environmental impacts arising from corporate
operations. Therefore, companies are increasingly interested in legitimizing themselves by disclosing their environmental activities and
practices. (Llena et al. 2007). By disclosing environmental activities and their impacts to stakeholders, companies will build a positive
image. (Bhattacharyya and Cummings 2015).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue II, February 2025
www.ijltemas.in Page 11
Company performance can be measured in terms of financial and non-financial aspects. Shareholders are motivated to invest their capital
in the hope of getting a return according to the capital invested. (According to Beylin 2016) efforts to maximize stock returns are the main
goal of a company. This is because high returns in a company reflect the company's ability to generate profits.
The purpose of this study is to determine the relationship between Green technology, environmental disclosure and green intellectual capital
on stock returns using firm size and company value as control variables. Previous studies related to green technology, lingli et al (2022) in
his research stated that green technology has a long-term positive influence on company performance. consistent with the findings Lu et al.
(2018). so also with the findings Xie et al. (2015). They argue that absorptive capacity has a positive moderating effect on the relationship
between clean technology in green process innovation and financial performance. This is different from the research results from Amores-
Salvado et al. (2014), who argue that environmental product innovation does not have a statistically significant positive effect on firm
performance.
The results of previous research that directly tested the influence of CSR on stock value. The research conducted Ashrafi et al. (2020) which
aims to examine the benefits of CSR in business organizations. This study implies that companies that effectively demonstrate that
companies that implement CSR in business processes are successful in developing positive relationships with stakeholders such as
customers, suppliers, investors, and employees. This result is also in line with previous research from Deer and Zarestky (2017), which
shows that CSR is a policy and practice designed and implemented to achieve business objectives, taking into account the environmental
requirements of government regulatory authorities, customers, and the general public. Previous research from Farooq et al. (2020) also
agree with this result. This study examines the role of CSR in achieving a highly sustainable business. The study highlights that CSR policies
continue to oversee business decisions and operations so that business activities do not leave negative impacts on the atmosphere, natural
resources, and health of living things.
In contrast to the results studied by Abdulazizi, et al, 2021, in his research stated that Environmental Sustainability disclosure is significantly
and negatively related to stock returns, indicating that higher levels of corporate environmental disclosure reduce stock returns of Saudi
listed companies. Furthermore, Barnea and Rubin (2010) argue that the level of ESG performance can be a cause of agency costs because
company management is more likely to support investments in ESG at the expense of shareholder interests with the company. the goal of
increasing their reputational benefits. In line with that, Kochhar (1996) states that when CSR control is low, agency conflict will increase,
which can have an impact on stock price fluctuations as a result of conflicts between company management and shareholders. Healy et al.
(1999) states that voluntary disclosure can improve stock performance. Healy et al. (1999) found that expanding disclosure would help
investors in valuing company shares, increase share liquidity, and help stakeholders in analyzing shares. Fitri et al. (2020) found that Green
Intellectual capital has a significant influence on future stock returns.
Liu and Jiang (2020) It has also been proven that IC has a positive impact on business progress, such as increasing brand equity and social
networks. In addition, IC provides various positive benefits for companies such as employee satisfaction and job retention. (Longo and
Mura, 2011), increasing business innovation (Ornek and Ayas, 2015; Adesina, 2019), increasing the relevance of accounting information
(Hayati et al., 2015) and cost efficiency (Martinez et al., 2020).
Due to the gap between phenomena and research gaps, the purpose of this study is to determine the role of green strategy, environmental
disclosure, green intellectual capital and their impact on stock returns of public companies.
II. Literature review
This study is anchored on stakeholder theory, a fundamental and essential recommendation of stakeholder theory which states that the group
needs to expand the company consists of non-traditional stakeholders, such as regulatory businesses hostile to changing social
needs. (Trotman, 1999) followed p in (Bassey et al., 2013).
Legitimacy Theory explains This theory emerged from the social science paradigm and emphasizes this assumption that companies must
order their social functions by meeting social needs and contributing to society having a higher image. Companies are increasingly trying
and showing their positive operations for extraordinary social activities, to achieve legitimacy, and show a good image of their company. In
addition, social pressure on companies, must allow legitimacy activities in front of society and additionally they use instruments such as
social and environmental information speech acts by Ali Khani et al., 2014.
Empirical review and hypothesis development
This paper aims to determine the influence of green technology, environmental disclosure and green intellectual capital on stock returns.
Green Technology on Returns Share
Green technology innovation in companies is not always conducive to improving the company's short-term financial performance, but it is
conducive to improving its long-term performance. (Lingli et al, 2022). In other words, although implementing green technology innovation
is slightly detrimental to a company's financial performance in the short term, it will benefit performance in the long term. This offers a new
perspective on the old debate on the relationship between green technology innovation is slightly detrimental to a company's financial
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue II, February 2025
www.ijltemas.in Page 12
performance in the short term, it will benefit performance in the long term. This offers a new perspective on the old debate on the relationship
between green technology innovation and a company's financial performance.
This is in accordance with the findings Xie et al. (2015). They argue that absorptive capacity has a positive moderating effect on the
relationship between green technology in green process innovation and financial performance. Thus, for firms that proactively implement
green process innovation, their stronger absorptive capacity can generate good profits in both the short and long term. On the other hand,
absorptive capacity negatively moderates the relationship between proactive green product innovation and short-term corporate financial
performance. However, surprisingly, it positively moderates the relationship between a firm's proactive green product innovation and its
long-term corporate financial performance.
This may be due to the absorptive capacity making it difficult to advance green technology innovation in the short term. Green technology
innovation requires companies to have high knowledge and technology transfer capabilities. Usually, however, this usually involves a
continuous and long-term process before companies can effectively and successfully change technology and research and development
activities.
Based on the explanation above, a hypothesis can be formulated.
Study namely:
H1: Yes The Positive Influence of Green Technology on Stock Earnings
Environmental Disclosure of Stock Returns
Many studies have shown that environmental disclosure affects corporate financial performance using meta-analysis. Studies, Endriakt et
al, 2014, suggesting that the association is particularly strong when the strategic approach underlying a firm’s environmental performance
is proactive rather than passive. They also reveal a methodological construct fairness effect, which can provide an explanation for previous
research findings. Similarly, Dixon-Bunga et al., 2013. found that small firms appear to benefit from environmental practices than large
firms. This is because small firms can compensate for the lack of free resources by being flexible. The disclosure of environmental activities
is also explained by signaling theory. This theory proposes that for firms to differentiate themselves, they send signals about their positive
outcomes. Thus, firms use CSR disclosure as a signal to their investors that they are engaged in CSR initiatives. This will support the
positive image of the firm in the market. (Sun et al. 2010) and their stock value will increase due to the demand for these stocks and the
valuation will be adjusted following CSR disclosure. In fact, the image and reputation risks associated with ESG can impact the company's
stock price in the market. (Sahut and Pasquini-Descomps 2015). Therefore, ESG risk reduction should not be ignored. The signal strength
conveyed by CSR is identified by its operative communication to a large number of stakeholders. (Godfrey et al. 2009). If investors
anticipate that a company can leverage good environmental performance to create value, they will act positively and increase the company's
stock price.
Based on the explanation above, a research hypothesis can be formulated, namely:
H2: Yes Positive influence of Environmental Disclosure on Earnings Share
Green Intellectual Capital on Stock Returns
Green intellectual capital enables companies to comply with strict international environmental regulations and meet increasing
environmental awareness by consumers and create value for the company. (Chandra and Augustine, 2019).
The available empirical evidence seems to support the benefits of reporting intellectual capital to external stakeholders. For example, there
is an increasing number of companies now reporting intellectual capital and the frameworks for doing so are well developed.(Systematic,
2004).In addition there is evidence to support the proposition that financial analysts are interested in intangibles and that companies that
disclose their company's long-term future have been rewarded with better market valuations.(Marr, 2003).There is also evidence to support
the argument that corporate managers believe that
Disclosure of intellectual capital increases transparency to the capital markets. Transparency results in lower weighted costs therefore higher
market capitalization helps to create trust with stakeholders, supports long-term vision through propagation of long-term perspectives, and
is suitable for use as a marketing tool. (vander Meer-Kooistra and Zijlstra, 2001). A recent empirical study of Fortune 500 companies' annual
reports also supports the argument that intellectual capital disclosure influences market valuations. (Abdolmohammadi, 2005). So it is likely
that communication with external stakeholders will continue to be an important basis for measuring and reporting intellectual capital. It is
the method by which companies disclose intellectual capital that is of further interest.
Based on the explanation above, a research hypothesis can be formulated, namely: H3: There is a positive influence of Green Intellectual
Capital on Stock Earnings.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue II, February 2025
www.ijltemas.in Page 13
III. Methodology
Research design
The analysis method used is by using a multiple linear regression analysis model. The analysis of this research data uses statistical
calculations with the application of Eviews version 9.
Population and sample
The population in this study were Basic Material and Transportation & Logistics sector companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange
with a total of 90 Transportation & Logistics and Basic Material sector companies from 2019 to 2021 listed on the IDX. The initial
population was 123 companies, 33 companies were excluded from the population because they did not have complete financial reports. The
number of samples used in the study was 267.
Operationalization and measurement of variables
Stock Return
Return is the total return of an investment over a certain period of time, consisting of capital gain (loss) and yield. Capital gain (loss) is the
difference between the current investment price relative to the previous period's price. Calculate stock returns using total return. This study
calculates total return by adding up capital gain (loss) and dividend stock yield from the formula (Sugiyanto, 2021).
RS =P(t) – P(t-1) + D(t) / P(t-1).
Green Technology
Green Technology is the development and application of products, equipment and systems used to preserve the environment and natural
resources, which minimize and reduce the negative impacts in human activities (KETTHA, 2011). In this study, the measurement of Green
Technology was measured using the green technology index (GTI), where each disclosure will be given a score of 1, and those not disclosed
will be given a score of 0. The indicator for green technology researchers took sources from Stenly (2001), Wang (2019) And Iyyanki V
(2017), as follows:
Table 1: Green Technology Index
In this study, the measurement of the Green Technology Index items was carried out using the following calculations:
𝑛𝑜𝑛/ 𝐃𝐺𝐶𝐼
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue II, February 2025
www.ijltemas.in Page 14
Where: GTI is the Green Technology Index: 𝑛 is the number of items disclosed by the company, 𝑘 is the number of items contained in the
Green Intellectual Capital Index.
Environmental Disclosure
Environmental disclosure is the disclosure of information relating to the environment in a company's annual report.
Environmental disclosure measurement can be obtained through CSR disclosure in annual reports or sustainability reports. The assessment
uses the GRI index, the GRI index is obtained from (www.globalreporting.org) in 2021. In detail, the environmental performance disclosure
categories are as follows:
In this study, the measurement of Environmental Disclosure items was carried out using the following calculations. (Meng et al: 2015):
Green Intellectual Capital
Green intellectual capital is all the knowledge possessed by an organization, that the organization can utilize in environmental management
processes to gain a competitive advantage. (López-Gamero et al. (2011).
This variable can be measured based on research conducted by Chen and Hung (2014) where each item disclosed by the company is given
a score of 1 and vice versa if it is not disclosed by the company it is given a score of 0. After that, the amount disclosed will be divided by
the total of all criteria that must be disclosed.
𝐺𝐼𝐶𝐼 = 𝑛/k
It is known:
𝐺𝐼𝐶I is the Green Intellectual Capital Index;
𝑛 is the number of items that
disclosed by the company, Capital Index
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue II, February 2025
www.ijltemas.in Page 15
𝑘 is the number of items in Green Intellectual
Study model and analysis
This study uses a regression equation design in the analysis and hypothesis testing as follows:
𝑅𝑆 = α + β1𝐺𝑇 + β3𝐸𝐷 + β2𝐺𝐼𝐶 + ε
Where: RS is the stock return;
α is Constanta;
β1, β2, β3, β4 is Regression coefficient, GT is green technology, ED is environmental disclosure, green intellectual capital, ε is Error.
𝐺𝐼𝐶 is
Table 3 Measurements variable Variable Indicator (s)Measurement
IV. Results and discussion
Regression Analysis
Panel data regression analysis aims to test how influential the independent variables are to the dependent variables with several companies
as samples over several time periods. The following table shows the results of the panel data regression analysis of the Random Effect
Model (REM) used:
Table 5. Random Effect Model
Table 4. Influence Green Technology, Environmental Disclosure and Green Intellectual Capital on Stock Returns
Variable
Coefficient
Std. Error
t-Statistic
Prob.
C
Green Technology
0.178202
0.670925
0.257745
0.540219
0.691389
1.241948
0.4899
0.2154
Green Intellectual Capital
-0.676584
0.335037
-2.019432
0.0445**
Environmental Disclosure
1.584420
0.934884
1.694777
0.0913***
Effects Specification
SD
Rho
Random cross section
0.276565
0.0328
Idiosyncratic random
1.502152
0.9672
Weighted Statistics
R-squared
Adjusted R-squared
0.029340
0.018268
Mean dependent variable
SD dependent var
0.314651
1.514043
SE of regression
1.500150
Sum squared residual
591.8684
F-statistic
2.649882
Durbin-Watson stat
1.834430
Prob(F-statistic)
0.049289
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue II, February 2025
www.ijltemas.in Page 16
Description: *significant at α = 1% **significant at α = 5% ***significant at α = 10%
Green Technology Has No Effect on Stock Returns
The results presented in Table 4 show that Green technology assessed based on the green technology index with three criteria, namely clean
technology, renewable energy and water-related adaptation technology, provides a significance value of 0.2154> 0.05 indicating that green
technology does not affect stock returns, so the hypothesis stating that green technology affects stock returns cannot be accepted because
the results of the study are shown in table 4.13. The positive coefficient value is 0.670925, which means that even effective green technology
is unable to increase stock returns in the company. This is because green technology in Indonesia is still a new thing so that investors do not
really care about this factor when they want to buy shares.
In the research results Chuang et al. (2015) also revealed that green technology has no effect on stock returns.
Green Intellectual Capital Has a Negative Influence on Stock Returns
Table 4 shows that Green intellectual capital assessed based on the green intellectual capital index with three criteria, namely Green human
capital, Green Structural Capital and Green relational capital, provides a significance value of 0.0445 <0.05 indicating that green intellectual
capital has an effect on stock returns, so the hypothesis stating that green intellectual capital has an effect on stock returns can be accepted.
The negative coefficient value of -0.676584 means that even ineffective green intellectual capital is able to increase stock returns in the
company. This is in accordance with the signaling theory which explains that companies can maintain productivity with the company's
competitive advantage by implementing strategies to create added value.
In the research resultsBontis (2000), Ulum (2018), Sugiyanto and Dwi (2021) also revealed that green intellectual capital has an effect on
stock returns. maintaining productivity with the company's competitive advantage by implementing strategies to create added value. In the
research resultsBontis (2000), Ulum (2018), Sugiyanto and Dwi (2021) also revealed that green intellectual capital has an effect on stock
returns.
Environmental Disclosure Has a Positive Influence on Stock Returns
Table 4 shows that Environmental Disclosure assessed based on the GRI index provides a significance value of 0.0913 <0.1 indicating that
Environmental Disclosure has an effect on stock returns, so the hypothesis stating that Environmental Disclosure has an effect on stock
returns can be accepted. The positive coefficient value of -1.584420 means that effective Environmental Disclosure can increase stock
returns in the company. This is in line with stakeholder theory and Legitimacy Theory. This means that the company can be accepted in
society because of the support of the surrounding community. Therefore, the company runs its business in a manner and behavior that is in
accordance with the guidelines applied by the community. In the research resultsAlsahlawi et al. (2021), Mănescu, (2011), Tasnia et al
(2020) also revealed that environmental disclosure has an effect on stock returns.
V. Conclusion and implications
This study attempts to analyze the influence of Green Technology, Environmental Disclosure and Green Intellectual Capital on Stock
Returns. First, the study observed that Green Technology has no effect on Stock Returns. This means that the high and low levels of Green
Technology have no effect on Stock Returns.
Second, Green Intellectual Capital has a negative and significant effect on Stock Return. This means that the more employees who do not
understand the environment, the lower the stock return level.
Third, Environmental Disclosure has a significant positive effect on stock returns. This means that the higher the company's environmental
disclosure, the higher the stock return.
VI. Suggestions for future research
The sample size in this study is small and the results cannot be considered representative of the current situation in Indonesian companies.
Future research can analyze the influence of Green Technology, Environmental Disclosure and Green Intellectual Capital on Stock Returns
and focus on comparative analysis across all corporate sectors in Indonesia.
References
1. Allameh, S. M. (2018). Antecedents and consequences of intellectualcapital: The role of social capital, knowledge sharing and
innovation. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 19(5), 858-874.
2. Brocade 2007. “Storage Area Network: Going Green with Brocade”,Brocade communi-cations systems, Inc. Retrieved 23 June,
2008, fromwww.greendatasystems.com http://www.rmit.edu.au/browse;ID=vpusc7o147se1.
3. Carter, C.R.; Rogers, DS A framework of sustainable supply chain management: Moving toward new theory. Int. J Phys. Distrib.
Logist. Manag. 2008, 38, 360–387. Chen, Y.S. (2008). The positive effect of green intellectual capital on competitiveness
advantages of firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(3), 271-286.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue II, February 2025
www.ijltemas.in Page 17
4. Choo, F. and K.T. Trotman. 1991. "The Relationship Between Knowledge Structure and Judgments for Experienced and
Inexperienced Auditors". The Accounting Review. July. 464-485.
5. Cortez, EnriqueClaver, Maria Dolores Lopez Gamero, Jose Francisco Molina Azorin and Patrocinio Del Carmen Zaragoza Saez,
2007. Intellectual and environmental capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital. Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 171-182.
6. Freeman, RE and Reed, DL, 1983. Stockholdersand stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. California
management review, 25(3), pp.88-106.
7. Guthrie, J., & Parker, L. (1990). Corporate social disclosurepractice: A comparative international analysis. Advances in Public
Interest Accounting, 3, 159-175.
8. Hayati, M., et al. (2015), "The effect of intellectual capital to value relevance of account-ting information based on PSAK
convergence of IFRS (manufacturing firms in Indonesia)”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 211, pp. 999-1007.
9. Healy, Paul M., 1985, The effect of bonus schemes on accounting decisions, Journal of Accounting and Economics 7,85-107.
10. Huang, CC, Yen, SW,Liu, C.Y., & Chang, T.P. (2014). The Relationship Among
11. Brand Equity, Customer Satisfaction, and Brand Resonance to Repurchase Intention of Cultural and Creative Industries in Taiwan.
The International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 6(3), 106-120.
12. Huang, CL, Kung, FHJMd, 2011. Environmental Consciousness and Intellectual Capital Management.
13. Jensen, M. C and Meckling, WH 1976. Theory of the Firm:Managerial Behavior, Agent-cy Costs and Ownership Structure. Journal
of Financial Economics, October, 1976, V. 3, No. 4, pp. 305-360.
14. Liu, CH and Jiang, JF (2020), “Assessing the moderating role of brand equity, intelligencetual capital and social capital in Chinese
luxury hotels”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 43, pp. 139-148.
15. Longo, M. and Mura, M. (2011), "The effect of intellectual capital on employees' satisfaction and retention", Information and
Management, Vol. 48 No. 7, pp. 278-287.
16. López‐Gamero, M.D., Zaragoza‐Sáez, P., Claver‐Cortés, E., & Molina‐Azorín, J.F.(2011). Sustainable development and
intangibles: building sustainable intellectual capital. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(1), 18-37.
17. Malik, S.Y., Cao, Y., Mughal, Y. H., Kundi, GM, Mughal, MH, Ramayah, T., 2020. Path ways towards sustainability in
organizations: empirical evidence on the role of green human resource management practices and green intellectual capital.
Sustainability 12(8), 3228.
18. Martinez, J.B., et al. (2020), “Joint forces: towards an integration of intellectual capital theory and the open innovation paradigm”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 112, pp. 261-270.
19. M Chandra, Y Augustine, 2019. The Influence of Green Intellectual Capital Index and Sustainability Disclosure on Financial and
Non-Financial Performance of Companies with
20. Transparency as a Moderating Variable. Trisakti Master of Accounting Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1 February 2019: 45-70.
Doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.25105/jmat.v6i1.5066
21. Ornek, AS and Ayas, S. (2015), € “The relationship between intellectual capital, innovative work behavior and business
performance reflection”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 195, pp. 1387-1395.
22. Rao, P. & Holt, D. 2005. "Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic performance?", International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, (25:9), pp 898-916.
23. Rossi, S. 2007. "Australia spends millions each year powering computers", Computerworld Australia (19Sep2007)
Retrieved5June,2008, from http://www.computerworld.com.au/
24. Saeed, B.B., Afsar, B., Hafeez, S., Khan, I., Tahir, M., Afridi, M.A., 2019. Promoting employee's proenvironmental behavior
through green human resource management practices. Corp. Soc. Responsive b. Environ. Manag. 26(2), 424–438.
25. Sugiyanto, S., & Candra, A. (2019). Good Corporate Governance, Conservatism
26. Accounting, Real Earnings Management, And Information Asymmetry On Share Return. Jiafe (Scientific Journal of Accounting,
Faculty of Economics), 4(1), 9-18.
27. Sydler, R., Haefliger, S., & Pruksa, R. (2014). Measuring intellectual capital with financial figures: Can we predict firm
profitability? European Management Journal, 32(2), 244-259.
28. Villiers, C., & van Staden, C. J. (2011). Where firms choose to disclose voluntary environmental information. Journal of Accounting
and Public Policy, 30(6), 504–525.
29. Whitby, P. 2007. “The benefits of Green IT: The reasons for adopting a greener IT policy have become too good to ignore”,
Retrieved5June,2008, fromhttp://www.computing.co.uk/computing-business/analysis/2199135/benefits-green-34208 72.
