A Proposed Model of Green Tax Acceptance Model: The Institutional Approach



Sustainability, Green Tax, Institutional theory, Corporate social responsibility


Climate change, natural resource depletion, and pollution have a major impact on the environment, social and economy for current and future generations. Green tax policy is designed not only to preserve the environment but also to motivate green growth activities among companies, individuals, and communities. However, the green tax policy in Malaysia is based on tax incentives only and not tax penalty. There is evidence that shows that the incentives based are not fully aware and not being part of companies’ strategies for environmental sustainability. Thus, the need for environmental practices in the manufacturing firms, particularly in the area of green tax, is becoming crucial. Previous studies found that coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures influence the implementation of green practices, but still in doubt whether the pressures also influence the acceptance of the green tax. This study applied the Institutional Theory to explore and explain the role of institutional pressures (coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures) in the development of a green tax acceptance model across the manufacturing firm. If the proposed green tax acceptance framework is validated, the findings will provide important insight to policymakers, practitioners, academicians, tax authorities, and other regulatory authorities in policy formulations and evaluation. Specifically, the findings will contribute to the development of the green tax policy model, mainly on the penalty-based tax reform and eventually increasing tax revenues and enhancing awareness of the green growth environment.


Aasen, M., & Vatn, A. (2018). Public attitudes toward climate policies: the effect of institutional contexts and political values. Ecological Economics, 146, 106-114.

Ahmed, W., Najmi, A., & Khan, F. (2019). Examining the impact of institutional pressures and green supply chain management practices on firm performance. Management of Environmental Quality, 31(5), 1261-1283. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-06-2019-0115

Alziady, A. A. D. J., & Enayah, S. H. (2019). Studying the effect of institutional pressures on the intentions to continue green information technology usage. Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility, 4(1), 4.

Azah, A.A, Rosmila, S, Fong, S.Y, Ong, T.S & Hassan, A. (2017). Influence of institutional pressure on the adoption of green initiatives, International Journal of Economics and Management, 11(3), 939-967.

Bansal, P., & Clelland, I. (2004). Talking trash: Legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic risk in the context of the natural environment. Academy of Management Journal, 47(1), 93-103.

Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A., Gelabert, L., & Gomez?Mejia, L. R. (2013). Necessity as the mother of ‘green inventions: Institutional pressures and environmental innovations. Strategic Management Journal, 34(8), 891-909.

Buysse, K., & Verbeke, A. (2003). Proactive environmental strategies: A stakeholder management perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 24(5), 453-470.

Cai, W., & Li, G. (2018). The drivers of eco-innovation and its impact on performance: Evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 176, 110-118.

Chen, X., Yi, N., Zhang, L., & Li, D. (2018). Does institutional pressure foster corporate green innovation? Evidence from China’s top 100 companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 188, 304-311.

Clippinger, J. (1999). Tags: the power of labels in shaping markets and organisations. The Biology of Business: Decoding the Natural Laws of Enterprise, 67-88.

Daddi, T., Bleischwitz, R., Todaro, N. M., Gusmerotti, N. M., & De Giacomo, M. R. (2020). The influence of institutional pressures on climate mitigation and adaptation strategies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 244, 118879.

Daddi, T., Testa, F., Frey, M., & Iraldo, F. (2016). Exploring the link between institutional pressures and environmental management systems effectiveness: An empirical study. Journal of Environmental Management, 183, 647-656.

Davidovic, D., Harring, N., & Jagers, S.C. (2020). The contingent effects of environmental concern and ideology: institutional context and people’s willingness to pay environmental taxes. Environmental Politics, 29(4), 674-696. http://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1606882

Delgado-Ceballos, J., Aragón-Correa, J. A., Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N., & Rueda-Manzanares, A. (2012). The effect of internal barriers on the connection between stakeholder integration and proactive environmental strategies. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 281-293.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organisational fields. American Sociological Review, 147-160.

Dreyer, S. J., & Walker, I. (2013). Acceptance and support of the Australian carbon policy. Social Justice Research, 26(3), 343-362.

Edwards, J., Mason, D., & Washington, M. (2009). Institutional pressures, government funding, and provincial sport organisations. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 6(2), 128-149.

Huang, X. X., Hu, Z. P., Liu, C. S., Yu, D. J., & Yu, L. F. (2016). The relationships between regulatory and customer pressure, green organisational responses, and green innovation performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 3423-3433.

Ivanova, O., & Castellono, S. (2011). The impact of globalisation on legitimacy signals: The case of organisations in a transition environment. Baltic Journal of Management, 6(1), 105-123.

Kalidin, U. (2017). An exploration of the views of manufacturing small-medium enterprise owners with regards to green tax incentives in the eThekwini region of KwaZulu-Natal (Doctoral dissertation).

Kassinis, G., & Vafeas, N. (2006). Stakeholder pressures and environmental performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 145-159.

Li, F., & Ding, D. Z. (2013). The effect of institutional isomorphic pressure on the internationalisation of firms in an emerging economy: Evidence from China. Asia Pacific Business Review, 19(4), 506-525.

Martínez-Ferrero, J., & García-Sánchez, I. M. (2017). Coercive, normative, and mimetic isomorphism as determinants of the voluntary assurance of sustainability reports. International Business Review, 26(1), 102-118.

McCright, A. M., Xiao, C., & Dunlap, R. E. (2014). Political polarisation on support for government spending on environmental protection in the USA, 1974–2012. Social Science Research, 48, 251-260.

Mignerat, M., & Rivard, S. (2012). The institutionalisation of information system project management practices. Information and Organization, 22(2), 125-153.

Modell, S. (2002). Institutional Perspectives on Cost Allocations: Integration and Extension, The European Accounting Review, 11(4), 653-79.

Prajogo, D., Tang, A. K., & Lai, K. H. (2012). Do firms get what they want from ISO 14001 adoption? An Australian perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 33, 117-126.

Radnejad, A. B., Vredenburg, H., & Woiceshyn, J. (2017). Meta-organizing for open innovation under environmental and social pressures in the oil industry. Technovation, 66, 14-27.

Schade, J., & Schlag, B. (2003). Acceptability of transport pricing strategies: An Introduction. In Acceptability of Transport Pricing Strategies. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Schuitema, G., Steg, L., & Forward, S. (2010). Explaining differences in acceptability before and acceptance after the implementation of a congestion charge in Stockholm. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 44(2), 99-109.

Scott, W. R. (2005). Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research program. Great Minds in Management: The Process of Theory Development, 37(2), 460-484.

Strand, R. (1983). A systems paradigm of organisational adaptations to the social environment. Academy of Management Review, 8, 90-96.

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610

Washington, M., & Patterson, K. (2011). Hostile takeover or joint venture: Connection between institutional theory and sport management research. Sport Management Review, 14(1), 1-12

Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., & Bürer, M. J. (2007). Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy, 35(5), 2683-2691.

Zeng, H., Chen, X., Xiao, X., & Zhou, Z. (2017). Institutional pressures, sustainable supply chain management, and circular economy capability: Empirical evidence from Chinese eco-industrial park firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 155, 54-65.

Zhang, Y., Thompson, R. G., Bao, X., & Jiang, Y. (2014). Analysing the promoting factors for adopting green logistics practices: a case study of the road freight industry in Nanjing, China. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 125, 432-444.

Zhang, Y., Wei, Y., & Zhou, G. (2018). Promoting firms’ energy-saving behaviour: The role of institutional pressures, top management support, and financial slack. Energy Policy, 115, 230-238.

Zhu, Q., Cordeiro, J., & Sarkis, J. (2013). Institutional pressures, dynamic capabilities, and environmental management systems: Investigating the ISO 9000–Environmental management system implementation linkage. Journal of Environmental Management, 114, 232-242.



How to Cite

Zainol Ariffin, Z., Sulaiman, A. J., Muhammad Jamil, C. Z., & Bidin, Z. (2020). A Proposed Model of Green Tax Acceptance Model: The Institutional Approach. Indian-Pacific Journal of Accounting and Finance, 4(3), 26-35. Retrieved from http://ipjaf.omjpalpha.com/index.php/ipjaf/article/view/115



Main Section