| No |
Authors |
Sample |
Waste/e-waste measurement |
Findings |
| 1 |
Gull et al. (in press) |
1,581 firms from 37 countries for year 2002-2017 |
Waste generation - total hazardous and non-hazardous wastes generated in tonnesRecycling activities - ratio of the recycled waste to total waste generated |
Board gender diversity enhances waste management |
| 2 |
Gull et al. (2022) |
2,284 firms from 41 countries for year 2002–2019 |
Refer Gull et al. (in press) |
Firms with lower generated waste but higher recycled waste had better financial performance (as measured by return on assets and Tobin’s q) |
| 3 |
Abd-Mutalib et al. (2021) |
92 firms from the telecommunication and technology industries in Malaysia for year 2019 |
The extent and quality of e-waste information in the annual/sustainability reportsExtent: number of words and sentenceQuality: 0-3 scale |
Low level of disclosures with average of 11.36 words, 0.41 sentences and 0.27 quality scoreFirm size as a significant factor |
| 4 |
Adler et al. (2021) |
30 leading firms in India for year 2012-2018 |
35 waste items, measured on a 1-0 basis, in the annual/ sustainability reportsItem 7: Company has a specific waste management policy (or e-waste management policy) |
Albeit increasing over the years, disclosure level was lowAverage number of firms reported Item 7 was 31% |
| 5 |
Kirchner (2021) |
13 food producing firms in South Africa for year |
24 items, measured on a yes/no/not available basis, in the annual reports.The items focused on whether the firms were serious about waste governance and management, reported the total weight of the hazardous and non-hazardous waste (together with the disposal methods), and indicated the approach undertaken to determine the waste disposal method. |
Only eight firms were serious about waste.Reuse, recycle and landfill were the mostly used methods.The majority were responsible for their waste (i.e., did not involve any contractor) |
| 6 |
Maia et al. (2021) |
26 global electricity companies for year 2017-2019 |
Quantity, typologies (hazardous versus non-hazardous) and disposal options of waste in the sustainability reports |
Total wastes: 50.84 Mt (non-hazardous), 0.39 Mt (hazardous)Landfills was the preferred option (54.9%) |
| 7 |
Selahudin et al. (2021) |
58 Malaysian firms for year 2018 |
E-waste reduction score from Thomson Reuters’ database |
CEO duality had marginal impact on e-waste reduction score |
| 8 |
Benjamin et al. (2020) |
S&P 500 Index companies for year 2010-2015 |
Total amount of waste in metric tonnes |
Firms with greater amount of waste had higher level of cash holdings, particularly those with strong governance and operating in environmentally sensitive industries |
| 9 |
Nik Azman & Mohd Salleh (2020) |
Refer Selahudin et al. (2021) |
Refer Selahudin et al. (2021) |
E-waste reduction score was not correlated with financial performance |
| 10 |
Knežević et al. (2018) |
30 Serbian firms from the banking industry for year 2013-2016 |
Whether or not published waste management reports |
The trend of reporting had increased but less than half prepared the report to the government and a very low disclosed to other stakeholders |
