June 9, 2025, Accra – A new study dispels the common misconception that environmentally sensitive industries (ESIs) are solely responsible for environmental degradation and social harm. In a possible first-of-its-kind review of Sub-Saharan African-listed firms, Emmanuel Kofi Penney, Alice Anima Aboagey and John Kwaku Amoh of the University of Professional Studies, Accra, indicate that mining companies are prioritising sustainability techniques and outshining their counterparts in the manufacturing and energy industries. The study, based on the Institutional Isomorphism Theory, non-parametric analytical approaches, and a sample of 135 listed firms across 10 sub-Saharan African countries, confirms that mining entities in the sub-region exhibit robust sustainability reporting and environmental responsibility. The difference is accounted for by enhanced institutional designs within the mining sector—more transparent systems of governance, higher sectoral independence, and better engagement with environmental and social stakeholders.
The results suggest that institution quality does matter—and one should not apply the same treatment to all spheres of ESI when designing sustainability policies or assessing their performance. Policymakers and business executives should learn from the advancements in the mining industry and study how its institutional setting can serve as a model to drive sustainability in other sectors, such as energy and manufacturing.
These conclusions urge policymakers, regulators, and sustainability professionals not to draw sweeping generalisations when assessing the performance of ESI subsectors. Instead, the study recommends using tailored approaches that consider sectoral dynamics and the all-critical dimension of institutional strength.
It is, therefore, essential to note that in Sub-Saharan Africa, mining companies lead the way in ESI sustainability practices. Stronger institutional frameworks( environmental sensitivity, sectorial institutional independence and social actors’ demands) in the mining sector promote better environmental and social performance. In this regard, policymakers must consider institutional variations when creating sustainability policies and regulations.
The implication is that regulations should be custom-made to match the level of risk in a given sector. High-impact firms, such as those in the oil and heavy manufacturing industries, should be subjected to more rigorous environmental standards. In contrast, low-impact entities may have less stringent sustainability requirements. Alternatively, some sectors should be required to produce environmental impact reports periodically. As a form of motivation, firms that are environmentally proactive in their stewardship could be eligible for tax breaks or green financing.
The nations must strengthen independent sectorial regulators by ensuring that governing units regulating respective sectors are sufficiently funded, legally protected and exempt from political influence or any form of lobbying. Furthermore, member states should encourage decentralisation by empowering community institutions to advocate for sustainability initiatives, as they are more familiar with local sustainability needs.
The results set a model for other sectors to improve their sustainability performance.
These findings offer a timely reminder: sustainable development in high-impact sectors is possible, and receiving proper support from the right institutions can make all the difference.
The study, published in the International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, is available at Sustainability accounting practices and reporting differences among key sub-industrial players in the environmentally sensitive industry in sub-Saharan Africa │| Econjournal.com.
Emmanuel K Penney, Alice A Aboagye & John K Amoh
University of Professional Studies, Accra
+233242250064
[email protected]
