Business Strategy and the Environment

RESEARCH ARTICLE

OPEN ACCESS

Environmental Sustainability in Wineries: How Contingency Factors and Environmental Management Accounting Tools Influence Environmental Performance?
Andréia Cittadin1	| Fabricia Silva da Rosa1 | Januario Monteiro2
1Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil | 2University of East Anglia, Norwich Business School, Norwich, United Kingdom
Correspondence: Andréia Cittadin (aci@unesc.net)
Received: 17 May 2024 | Revised: 24 September 2025 | Accepted: 15 November 2025
Keywords: contingency theory | environmental management accounting | sustainability practices | wine sector
ABSTRACT
How do wineries design sustainability practices and use environmental management accounting (EMA)? This study addresses that question by analyzing the influence of contingency factors on the adoption of sustainability practices and the use of EMA tools to improve the environmental performance of wineries. The research was carried out through a survey with 171 Brazilian wineries, and structural equation modeling regression was used to test the hypothesis. The results suggest that contingency factors, such as environmental uncertainties, environmental strategy, and technology influence the adoption of sustainability practices and the use of EMA tools and have a positive impact on the environmental performance of Brazilian wineries. The study also shows that there is no direct effect between the use of EMA tools and environmental performance, but there is a positive impact on financial and nonfinancial performance, indicating that in a winery setting EMA tools are mainly used for cost saving and economic purposes rather than environmental impact. This study extends our understanding of how wineries design sustainability practices and deploy EMA tools in response to contextual contingencies. Drawing on contingency theory, we highlight the role of environmental uncertainty, strategy, and technology in shaping sustainability behavior. Our findings further show that the use of EMA tools by Brazilian wineries often leads to economic benefits.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
© 2025 The Author(s). Business Strategy and the Environment published by ERP Environment and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

1		| Introduction
Environmental sustainability has become an urgent priority for firms worldwide, driven by escalating ecological challenges such as global warming and the increasing scarcity of water and energy resources (Marco- Lajara et al. 2023; Martínez- Falcó et al. 2023). In this context, firms face growing pressure from stakeholders to integrate environmentally responsible strategies (Afum et al. 2020) and to embed environmental accounting practices into their core management systems (Burritt et al. 2020). This pressure is particularly acute in environmentally sensitive sectors such as wine production, where environmental impacts are closely scrutinized (Christ 2014). As a resource- intensive setting anchored in agricultural inputs (most notably grapes), wine
production entails extensive land use and involves a sequence of processing stages that generate both organic and inorganic waste streams (Zacharof 2017). Furthermore, the sector's substantial consumption of water and energy introduces critical sustainability challenges with broad environmental repercussions (Gabzdylova et al. 2009; Trigo and Silva 2022; Martínez- Falcó et al. 2025). These concerns span the entire value chain, from viticulture and fermentation to packaging and distribution. As such, context- sensitive approaches to sustainability are required.
Evidence from previous literature suggests that the adoption of environmental information metrics is more likely when wineries pursue clear environmental strategies and comply with regulatory requirements (Christ 2014). However, the lack of reliable environmental information on operational processes and products remains a key challenge in explaining the environmental performance of wineries (Marco- Fondevila et al. 2020). Acknowledging this issue, Martínez- Falcó et al. (2025) call for further research, emphasizing the importance of environmental management accounting (EMA) in promoting long- term sustainability by helping wineries reduce operational costs, water waste, and energy consumption. EMA has been increasingly recognized as a vital tool for embedding environmental considerations into core management processes (Burritt 2004; Gunarathne and Lee 2021; Sari et al. 2021; Appannan et al. 2023; Gunarathne et al. 2023). It enables organizations to systematically monitor, quantify, and report both financial and physical aspects of environmental performance (Gunarathne et al. 2023; Xu et al. 2025), thereby supporting evidence- based decision- making through structured sustainability metrics (Schaltegger et al. 2022). These actions include material reuse (Rugani et al. 2013), resource optimization, especially in water and energy use (Marshall et al. 2005; Trigo and Silva 2022), and the institutionalization of recycling practices (Pomarici and Vecchio 2019). Such initiatives are not merely exercises in compliance; rather, they reflect evolving organizational capabilities designed to align environmental responsibility with performance goals. Despite these insights, our understanding of how wineries design and use sustainability practices to assess organizational outcomes remains limited.
We argue that this gap stems from insufficient knowledge of how winery context factors shape the adoption of sustainability practices and the use of EMA tools. These contextual factors, such as climate change and natural disasters (Latan et al. 2018), stakeholder pressure, regulatory compliance, and consumer demand (Baird et al. 2018; Gabzdylova et al. 2009), differentiation strategies (Trigo and Silva 2022), and technological advancements (Agi and Nishant 2017; Sharma et al. 2017) affect the magnitude of a firm's action. Specifically, it has been argued that factors such as environmental uncertainty, environmental strategy, and technology play a particular role in shaping organizational practices (Maas et al. 2016; Latan et al. 2018; Sharma et al. 2017), encouraging managers to engage more proactively in sustainability initiatives. To explore this nuance, we draw on contingency theory, which offers a useful lens for understanding how these factors influence sustainability management in the winery context. These dynamics compel managers to incorporate a wide range of considerations into their sustainability- related decisions (Christ 2014), not only to meet stakeholder expectations and strengthen organizational legitimacy, but also to reduce environmental impact and reinforce corporate responsibility (Jun et al. 2024). From this perspective, we draw on the limited existing evidence on the intersection between these elements (Gond et al. 2012; Christ 2014; Gerged et al. 2024) to suggest that a winery's adoption of sustainability practices and the use of EMA tools do not occur in isolation but are influenced by contingency factors. Hence, this study seeks to answer the following research question: How do contingency factors influence the adoption of sustainability practices and the use of EMA tools, contributing to environmental performance in wineries?
Our research contributes to the business literature by addressing how firms in the winery setting design sustainability practices and use EMA tools to ensure that strategic and operational objectives are taken into account. Our study responds to calls for more research exploring how decision- making on sustainability matters is conducted in less explored settings (e.g., the winery setting) (Elhossade et al. 2021; Schaltegger et al. 2022). We also advance the literature by highlighting contingency theory as a critical lens for understanding how wineries engage in sustainability practices, particularly in designing and using sustainability practices. Thus, we add to the literature that illustrates how contingency factors lead to positive sustainable outcomes (Christ 2014; Hsiao et al. 2022; Steur et al. 2020; Karagiannis and Metaxas 2020), by showing that environmental uncertainties, environmental strategy, and technology are core elements that influence wineries to adopt sustainability practices and use EMA tools.
Second, this study shows that, in the Brazilian winery context, the use of EMA tools does not directly influence environmental performance but is positively associated with financial performance. This finding suggests that firms may adopt EMA primarily for its economic utility (for cost savings and operational efficiency), rather than as a comprehensive tool for environmental change. In line with Monteiro et al. (2025), who emphasize that the juxtaposition of such orientations can enhance the effectiveness of environmental management practices, our findings prompt managers to reconsider how economic goals can be strategically aligned with environmental objectives, given the broader organizational context and underlying motivations. Finally, our study also offers practical contributions by providing insights that can help policymakers design more effective environmental incentives and regulations, as well as assist managers in implementing sustainable strategies tailored to the unique characteristics of the wine sector. These efforts have the potential to reduce environmental impacts while simultaneously enhancing organizational performance.
2		| Theoretical Foundation and Hypothesis Development
2.1		| Exploring Contingency Theory in Sustainability Context
Contingency theory remains one of the most prominent theoretical lenses in management accounting research (Chenhall 2003) and has provided a foundation for understanding the emergence and application of EMA (Christ and Burritt 2013b; Christ 2014). Its central premise that the effectiveness of organizational systems is conditional on internal and external contextual factors offers explanatory power for the variation observed in EMA adoption across firms. In this view, contingency theory helps account for how particular contextual configurations may either facilitate or inhibit the integration of sustainable practices, contributing to resource efficiency and improved organizational performance (Agi and Nishant 2017; Maletič et al. 2018; Christ 2014).
A central contribution of contingency theory lies in its capacity to elucidate how diverse management practice designs emerge in response to contextual conditions (Hutahayan 2020). Rather than assuming universally optimal management practices, the theory emphasizes the fit between system characteristics and organizational context, thereby explaining observed interfirm variation in organizational structures and processes (Elhossade et al. 2021). Among the contingent factors that have been explored, we focus on environmental uncertainty, environmental strategy, and technology, due to their relevance for environmental sustainability studies in the winery context.
Environmental uncertainty refers to the unpredictability of market demands, regulatory shifts, competitor actions, and broader environmental changes (Maletič et al. 2018; Sharma et al. 2017; Wang et al. 2018) and emerges as a critical trigger for sustainability- related organizational change. Firms experiencing such uncertainty are more likely to adopt EMA as a means to enhance decision- making under volatile conditions (Latan et al. 2018; Elhossade et al. 2021). Another factor, environmental strategy, plays a fundamental role in contingency theory, allowing integration with other contingency factors (Chenhall 2003). Defined as a proactive commitment to environmental goals beyond mere compliance, environmental strategy has been positively associated with the use of EMA practices (Christ and Burritt 2013b; Gunarathne and Lee 2021; Gunarathne et al. 2023). These strategies not only shape EMA use but also have both direct and indirect effects on environmental performance (Latan et al. 2018; Pondeville et al. 2013).
Technology constitutes another core contingency factor, seen as a structural determinant of organizational functioning and control systems (Waterhouse and Tiessen 1978; Abdel- Kader and Luther 2008). In sustainability contexts, technological adoption serves as a mechanism through which firms can align environmental goals with operational capabilities (Hofmann et al. 2012). Information technology enables enhanced integration between performance measurement and strategic objectives (Hyvönen 2007) by providing timely, relevant information necessary for navigating environmental complexities (Gordon and Miller 1976).
The co- evolution of these contingency factors is particularly salient in environmentally sensitive sectors such as the wine industry, where external pressures from stakeholders, customers, regulators, communities, and industry associations serve as catalysts for environmental responsiveness (Gabzdylova et al. 2009; Karagiannis and Metaxas 2020; Nave et al. 2021; Steur et al. 2020). In this domain, stakeholder pressure not only reinforces regulatory compliance but also often necessitates strategic environmental action (Ateş et al. 2012). Environmental strategy, in turn, requires firms to prioritize among competing sustainability concerns (Morioka and de Carvalho 2016) and to develop long- term orientations that meet evolving stakeholder expectations (Maletič et al. 2018).
This strategic orientation frequently entails product and process innovation, enabled by new technologies such as advanced machinery, software, and employee training systems (Rosa et al. 2020; Hofmann et al. 2012). Within the wine sector specifically, the mitigation of environmental impacts, such as those arising from solid waste, often hinges on such technological investments (Devesa- Rey et al. 2011). Thus, the interplay between contingent factors (uncertainty, strategy, and technology) shapes the adoption of sustainable practice and use of EMA.
2.2		| Contingency Factors, Adoption of Sustainability Practices, and Use of EMA tools
The literature on contingency factors has signaled the importance of firms accounting for uncertainty in the environment they operate, the strategy that reflects firms' value and mission as well as technology adopted to maintain competitiveness in the market (Khanh et al. 2024). While a considerable contribution has been added to the environmental strategy (Gunarathne et al. 2023), there is still demand for more studies understanding the implication of this factor in the winery context.
Previous literature has shown that sustainability practices consist of firms' actions adopted to minimize environmental impacts and promote more balanced development (Raut et al. 2019; Silva et al. 2022). The adoption of such practices is particularly important as wineries face an increasingly uncertain environment, including challenges such as potable water scarcity, high levels of waste generation, and extreme weather events (Trigo and Silva 2022). Ignoring these events and their associated environmental risks is detrimental, as the potential for financial loss and severe environmental damage is undeniable (Christ 2014; Steur et al. 2020; Karagiannis and Metaxas 2020).
In addition, demands from customers, local communities, industry associations, and government agencies, have been a key driver for the adoption of sustainability practices (Gabzdylova et al. 2009; Steur et al. 2020; Karagiannis and Metaxas 2020; Nave et al. 2021). Such pressure can lead companies to adopt environmental strategies that go beyond regulatory compliance (Ateş et al. 2012) and to invest in technologies that enable cleaner and more sustainable production (Devesa- Rey et al. 2011). Previous literature devised from contingency theory to explain how these factors can facilitate or hinder the adoption of sustainable practices, influencing more efficient resource allocation and improved performance (Agi and Nishant 2017; Maletič et al. 2018; Christ 2014). Specifically, the level of consideration, given to environmental uncertainties, strategies, and technology, may either facilitate or undermine the adoption of sustainable practices, eventually impacting environmental performance (Agi and Nishant 2017; Latan et al. 2018; Maletič et al. 2018).
Environmental uncertainties pose challenges that demand practices aimed at minimizing their impact and ensuring business continuity. Examples include the use of alternative energy sources and waste treatment equipment (Maletič et al. 2018; Sharma et al. 2017; Wang et al. 2018). Technology, in turn, plays a crucial role in this process, being associated with cleaner production processes and the enhancement of environmental practices (Hofmann et al. 2012). Additionally, strategy enables companies to integrate environmental concerns into their management practices, through strategies focused on the development of sustainable products and processes (Morioka and de Carvalho 2016; Pondeville et al. 2013). Proactive environmental strategies can be understood as opportunities to improve energy efficiency, environmental performance, and economic efficiency (Sangle 2010). The environmental strategy positively and simultaneously impacts the economic and environmental performance of organizations (Latan et al. 2018; Gunarathne et al. 2021). Based on these findings, there appears to be a growing tendency to consider a positive effect of contingency factors on the adoption of sustainability practices in wineries. Based on the above, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1. In the winery context, contingency factors, such as environmental uncertainties (a), environmental strategy (b), and technology (c), are positively associated with the adoption of environmental sustainability practices.
In addition to sustainability practices, the literature highlights that management tools provide relevant information on the use of environmental resources and promote a culture of sustainability in wineries (Martínez- Falcó et al. 2025). In this regard, EMA is identified as a key set of management tools for sustainability, as it supports internal decision- making and enables the identification, assessment, and integration of various types of information (Burritt 2004; Bresciani et al. 2023), such as environmental costs, material flows, energy use, and physical environmental resources (Burritt et al. 2002; Jasch 2006; Schaltegger et al. 2008; Martínez- Falcó et al. 2025). As a result, EMA enables the simultaneous reduction of environmental impacts and costs (Doorasamy 2015), strengthens corporate reputation (Zandi and Lee 2019; Gunarathne et al. 2021; Appannan et al. 2023), and improves organizational performance (Burritt et al. 2023). The literature illustrated that firms in high- impact sectors, such as manufacturing, derive particular benefits from EMA as a means of improving environmental efficiency (Zhen and Rahman 2024). However, across manufacturing, energy, mining, and service industries, EMA remains fragmented and nonstandardized, with adoption shaped by organizational contingencies and external pressures (Christ and Burritt 2013b). Previous evidence shows that EMA effectiveness depends on interfirm and stakeholder collaboration, which is critical for advancing cleaner production (Burritt et al. 2019). In agribusiness, where ecological pressures directly threaten business viability, EMA controls serve as essential mechanisms for detecting inefficiencies and capturing cost savings. By reducing waste and conserving energy, these controls simultaneously enhance competitiveness and lower the sector's environmental footprint (Rodrigues et al. 2025).
In the wine sector, EMA facilitates the evaluation of the longterm implications of winery activities (Christ 2014) and the identification of inefficiencies and opportunities for sustainability improvements (Martínez- Falcó et al. 2025). This involves key measures that reflect resource use, emissions, and ecological impact. Commonly applied EMA indicators include water use efficiency, measured as liters per liter of wine produced, and carbon emissions per bottle, which quantify the environmental cost of production (Christ 2014). The percentage of renewable energy used and the share of vineyard area under organic or biodynamic certification are also critical indicators of environmental commitment (Fragoso and Figueira 2021; Trigo and Silva 2022). Additionally, the use of recycled materials helps monitor the lifecycle impacts of wine distribution (Fragoso and Figueira 2021). As sustainability becomes integral to competitive advantage in the wine industry, EMA emerges as an essential tool. Its consistent application enhances transparency, operational efficiency, and stakeholder engagement. Wineries that embed these metrics into their core strategy are better positioned to adapt to environmental risks and regulatory changes (Trigo and Silva 2022).
Despite the potential benefits of EMA, wineries may face several challenges in implementing these tools. Prior research highlights that contingency factors can significantly influence the adoption and use of management practices (Christ 2014; Latan et al. 2018; Zhen and Rahman 2024). We argue that, particularly in the context of the wine industry, a sector highly exposed to environmental volatility and reputational scrutiny, understanding how such contingency factors shape EMA usage is critical. In this setting, environmental uncertainties, such as water scarcity (Christ 2014) and energy shortages (Gunarathne and Lee 2021), may require wineries to exercise tighter control over the consumption of these natural resources. These uncertainties may also reinforce the need to monitor environmental impacts to avoid penalties (Zhen and Rahman 2024).
Drawing on contingency theory, which posits that organizational effectiveness depends on the fit between internal systems and external conditions (Donaldson 2001), we argue that the use of EMA tools is contingent on key contextual conditions. First, environmental uncertainty heightens informational demands, prompting organizations to adopt more sophisticated control systems. EMA, in this regard, functions as an adaptive response to volatile environmental conditions, enabling firms to gather relevant data and support environmentally oriented decision- making under uncertainty (Pondeville et al. 2013; Latan et al. 2018; Swalih et al. 2024). Second, strategic orientation conditions how EMA is utilized. Firms pursuing environmental strategies, such as those adopting ISO 14001, require systems that support detailed tracking of environmental performance and continuous improvement (Christ 2014; Appannan et al. 2023). In these cases, EMA serves not merely as a reporting tool but as a mechanism for achieving strategic alignment. Prior research links both reactive and proactive strategies with increased adoption of carbon accounting and green investments, practices often embedded within EMA frameworks (Christ 2014; Ferreira et al. 2010; Gunarathne and Lee 2021; Swalih et al. 2024; Bui and De Villiers 2017). Third, the technological context shapes the feasibility and sophistication of EMA implementation. Digital technologies, such as real- time monitoring and integrated information systems, enhance the accuracy, timeliness, and usability of environmental data (Elhossade et al. 2021; Zhen and Rahman 2024). As technological complexity increases, so does the need for data- rich accounting tools, reinforcing the contingency- based view that organizational structures and systems must evolve in response to contextual shifts (Gunarathne et al. 2023).
Together, these contingencies, environmental uncertainty and strategy, and technological infrastructure shape the extent to which EMA becomes a valuable and effective organizational tool. Therefore, we expect that contingency factors influence how firms implement EMA tools (Christ and Burritt 2013b; Chaudhry and Amir 2020), particularly in sensitive sectors such as the wine sector. Thus, the following hypothesis arises:
H2. In the winery context, the contingency factors, such as environmental uncertainties (a), environmental strategy (b), and technology (c), are positively associated with the use of EMA tools.
2.3		| Adoption of Sustainability Practices, Use of EMA Tools, and Environmental Performance
The level of design and adoption of sustainability practices has become a central topic in contemporary debates on how firms can embrace more responsible behaviors, reducing social inequalities and environmental impact (Bui and De Villiers 2017; Bandinelli et al. 2020). These practices are often aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and aim to foster awareness across the entire organization, ensuring a holistic approach to sustainability that permeates all organizational levels, from top management to operational staff (Gunarathne et al. 2021; Appannan et al. 2023). SDGs such as Clean Water and Sanitation (Goal 6), Affordable and Clean Energy (Goal 7), Responsible Consumption and Production (Goal 12), and Climate Action (Goal 13) have been identified as particularly relevant in the business discourse on sustainability, especially for sectors with high resource dependency, such as wineries. Within the wine sector, environmental performance metrics have been highlighted as instrumental in translating sustainability values into concrete practices (Devesa- Rey et al. 2011; Bandinelli et al. 2020; Trigo and Silva 2022).
The adoption of sustainability practices not only enables firms to innovate and improve processes but also contributes to reducing natural resource consumption and mitigating environmental harm (Ferreira et al. 2010). Prior studies have predicted the association between these practices with improvements in financial and market performance, product quality, innovation, and both environmental and social outcomes (Maletič et al. 2018), while also suggesting that such organizational practices help firms prevent penalties and regulatory fines (Abdallah and Al- Ghwayeen 2020). Technological interventions, such as solar energy systems that reduce electricity consumption, also enhance firms' environmental and financial performance (Bandinelli et al. 2020). Furthermore, the alignment of sustainability practices with waste reduction policies, particularly at the operational level, where products and services are delivered, is critical. In the winery context, empirical evidence supports the benefits of wastewater treatment, composting organic waste, recycling inorganic materials (Devesa- Rey et al. 2011; Fragoso and Figueira 2021; Trigo and Silva 2022), and reducing glass bottle thickness (Forbes and De Silva 2012; Bandinelli et al. 2020) as strategies for lowering greenhouse gas emissions (Trigo and Silva 2022).
While evidence on the organizational outcomes of designing such sustainability practices within the winery sector remains limited, recent studies (e.g., Martínez- Falcó et al. 2023) suggest that adopting environmental practices across the wine production chain, from grape cultivation to distribution, can promote cultural change, reduce GHG emissions and operational costs, and foster a long- term strategic orientation. These outcomes are ultimately associated with enhanced environmental performance.
H3. In the winery context, the adoption of sustainability practices is positively associated with environmental performance.
The level of use of organizational practices has been suggested as imperative for business success and competitive advantage.
Particularly, the literature at the intersection of management accounting and sustainability argues that the use of EMA tools, widely recognized as a means to enhance both environmental and organizational performance (Burritt et al. 2019; Sari et al. 2021), integrates environmental metrics, regulatory compliance, and operational efficiency, which enables continuous monitoring and provides essential data for planning and decision- making (Gunarathne et al. 2021; Schaltegger et al. 2022). Although its benefits are well documented, the literature still highlights challenges and inconsistencies that limit the generalization of its effects on organizational performance. What is known is that EMA tools can provide complementary information on costs and nonfinancial performance indicators, assisting firms in identifying strategic uncertainties, measuring deviations, and implementing corrective actions to improve environmental performance. However, responses to these tools vary across sectors, and factors such as a lack of specialized knowledge and rigidity in implementation can compromise their effectiveness (Xu et al. 2025).
One of the main tensions in EMA research lies in its excessive focus on measurement, which is often disconnected from tangible improvements in environmental and economic performance (Abdel- Maksoud et al. 2021; Schaltegger et al. 2022; Asiaei et al. 2022; Bresciani et al. 2023; Gunarathne et al. 2023; Gerged et al. 2024). While studies show that EMA supports the traceability of physical flows and environmental costs, its effects on operational efficiency and sustainability still lack robust empirical evidence (Schaltegger et al. 2022). Another critical issue is the concentration of EMA research in a limited number of sectors and geographic regions (Hsiao et al. 2022; Gerged et al. 2024), overlooking industries such as Brazil's wine sector, where sustainability faces specific challenges due to high water and energy consumption, as well as the need for effective waste management (Bandinelli et al. 2020; Fragoso and Figueira 2021; Trigo and Silva 2022). Given these gaps, exploring how the use of EMA in the winery setting contributes to improved environmental performance becomes relevant for the literature, expanding knowledge about the use of EMA tools in an underexplored context. Based on the arguments presented, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H4. In the winery context, the use of EMA tools is positively associated with environmental performance.
2.4		| Mediation Role of Adoption of Sustainability Practices and Use of EMA Tools
The wine sector is highly sensitive to and dependent on ecological aspects (such as climate, soil, and water); as a result, managers actively monitor environmental uncertainties, strategies, and new technologies to ensure that organizational performance is maintained. When environmental uncertainties arise, such as global warming caused by excessive greenhouse gas emissions, actions like the use of alternative energy sources and waste treatment can be crucial for improving environmental performance and reducing the environmental pressure of viticulture activities (Maletič et al. 2018; Sharma et al. 2017; Wang et al. 2018). Similarly, the development of sustainable products and processes can help operationalize
sustainability-oriented strategies (Pondeville et al. 2013), and cleaner production practices are often the result of adopting technologies aimed at improving environmental performance (Hofmann et al. 2012; Morioka and de Carvalho 2016). Therefore, when practices are implemented in alignment with managers' perceptions of contingent factors, the positive effect of these factors is amplified, and environmental performance is improved. This is because the practices are executed in accordance with the most strategic needs to address the threats or opportunities posed by the contextual factors. Based on this, the following research hypothesis is proposed:
H5. In the winery context, the associations between contingency factors, environmental uncertainties (a), environmental strategy (b), and technology (c) and environmental performance are positively mediated by the adoption of sustainability practices.
The relationship between contingent factors and environmental performance has been widely discussed in the literature, highlighting that elements such as environmental uncertainties, environmental strategy, and technological advancements can either drive or limit the effectiveness of sustainability practices (Christ 2014; Latan et al. 2018; Zhen and Rahman 2024). In the wine sector, the scarcity of natural resources, such as water and energy, requires stricter controls over consumption and environmental impacts (Gunarathne and Lee 2021), while proactive strategies, such as environmental certifications, demand tools for monitoring and continuous improvement (Christ 2014; Appannan et al. 2023). Furthermore, digitalization and the use of integrated systems enhance the traceability of emissions and waste, improving sustainable management (Elhossade et al. 2021; Zhen and Rahman 2024).
EMA tools, in turn, play a central role in this context by providing essential environmental and financial metrics to assess and improve environmental performance (Christ and Burritt 2013a, 2013b; Burritt et al. 2019). The adoption of EMA allows wineries to integrate environmental data into decision- making, assisting in regulatory compliance and optimizing resource use (Gunarathne et al. 2023; Schaltegger et al. 2022). However, although EMA is recognized for its ability to enhance organizational sustainability, its impact on environmental performance still depends on organizational and sectoral factors that condition its applicability and effectiveness (Gunarathne et al. 2023; Gerged et al. 2024).
Therefore, it is expected that contingent factors, such as environmental uncertainties, environmental strategy, and technology, will positively influence the environmental performance of wineries, with the use of EMA tools reinforcing the effect of these contingent factors on performance. This may occur because EMA provides firms with the necessary information to respond more efficiently to environmental and strategic pressures, ensuring better control over resource consumption and reducing environmental impacts. Therefore, the following hypothesis was developed:
H6. In the winery context, the associations between contingency factors, environmental uncertainties (a), environmental strategy (b), and technology (c) and environmental performance are positively mediated by the use of EMA tools.
Figure 1 presents the research conceptual model and the outlined hypotheses, which are underpinned by the literature on the intersection between contingency factors, design, and use of sustainability practices and environmental performance.
3		| Research Design and Methods
3.1		| Population and Sample
Brazil is recognized as a country with a strong wine tradition (Devesa- Rey et al. 2011; Mello and Machado 2021). Globally, it ranks 17th in wine production and holds 3rd position in South America, accounting for approximately 1.2% of global production, with an average annual output of 330 million liters (Fensterseifer 2007). In 2013, Brazil was ranked 14th globally, shifting to 15th in 2022 (OIV 2023). To define the research population, we began with 24,322 establishments registered under the wine and beverage category. Of these, 6257 were identified as producers of wine and grape- based derivatives. Narrowing further, 1213 were classified specifically as wineries and wine producers, with 1167 holding active registrations according to the Integrated System of Agricultural Products and Establishments (SIPEAGRO 2023). The sample was selected through a nonprob- abilistic and purposive sampling approach, targeting managers with decision-making responsibilities in sustainability and environmental practices. This ensured that the respondents possessed the necessary knowledge to provide reliable and relevant insights for the study. An overview of the sample selection process is provided in Figure 2.

FIGURE 1 | Conceptual model.

The details of wineries, including email addresses and telephone numbers, were collected from websites associated with wine tourism, the wine industry, and producer associations. This process yielded 264 contacts. To validate the research instrument, two- stage pretests were conducted. The first involved

FIGURE 2 | Sample selection. Source: Prepared by the authors (2025).

three academics specializing in the subject. After incorporating their suggested adjustments, the instrument was pretested with a winemaker to verify its clarity and suitability for interpretation by winery managers, for whom it was designed. Once the questionnaire was completed, a presentation letter introducing the research and a link to the online survey were sent to all available email addresses. In addition, a professional survey firm was hired to conduct follow- up calls and reinforce participation. The data collection occurred from May 2023 to July 2023, resulting in 179 responses, of which 8 were excluded, with 6 due to duplicate responses and missing information and 2 because the firms were only grape juice producers.
3.2		| Measurement of Variables
This study examined four key constructs, which are (i) contingency factors, (ii) adoption of sustainability practices, (iii) the use of EMA tools, and (iv) environmental performance. Additionally, managers' and firms' characteristics were also collected.
Contingency factors were operationalized through three factors. Environmental uncertainty was measured by seven items assessing its influence on sustainability initiatives (Latan et al. 2018; Pondeville et al. 2013), using a 5- point Likert scale (1 = no influence to 5 = very strong influence). Environmental strategy was captured by six items reflecting strategic orientations toward sustainability (Christ and Burritt 2013b; Pondeville et al. 2013), measured on a 5- point Likert scale (1 = completely disagree to 5 = completely agree). Technology adoption as a contingency factor was assessed with four items, evaluating its role in shaping internal decision- making processes (Agi and Nishant 2017; Hofmann et al. 2012; Sharma et al. 2017), also on a 5- point Likert scale (1 = completely disagree to 5 = completely agree).
Adoption of sustainability practices was measured following Sharma et al. (2017), comprising 28 items that capture the design and implementation of environmental initiatives, rated on a 5- point Likert scale (1 = completely disagree to 5 = completely agree). Furthermore, the EMA tool was assessed with eight items adapted from Christ and Burritt (2013b) and Qian et al. (2018), measuring the extent of use of this organizational practice, on a 5- point Likert scale (1 = not used at all to 5 = used extensively).
Environmental performance was evaluated through 11 items reflecting respondents' perceptions of outcomes related to emissions reduction, waste management, regulatory compliance, crisis mitigation, reputational improvements, and resource efficiency (Abdallah and Al- Ghwayeen 2020; Latan et al. 2018; Maletič et al. 2018; Wang et al. 2018). Items were rated on a 5- point Likert scale (1 = low to 5 = high).
Additional variables, including financial and nonfinancial performance, were measured based on prior sustainability and management research (Abdallah and Al- Ghwayeen 2020; Latan et al. 2018; Maletič et al. 2018; Sharma et al. 2017). Furthermore, five items captured respondent demographic profiles, and eight items assessed organizational characteristics.
3.3		| Data Analysis Procedures
For data analysis structural equation modeling based on partial least squares (PLS) was applied. This analysis technique enables the examination of relationships between predictor and outcome variables through path analysis, which establishes multiple regressions (Hair et al. 2016). The constructs were subjected to rigorous evaluation to verify the validity and reliability of their respective items. The first stage involved the measurement

Panel A—reliability and convergent validity	
Constructs			rho_a		CR		AVE	
1. Environmental uncertainties			0.927		0.932		0.667	
2. Environmental strategy			0.819		0.860		0.552	
3. Technology			0.861		0.877		0.643	
4. Adoption of sustainability practices			0.950		0.948		0.511	
5. EMA tools			0.938		0.938		0.655	
6. Environmental performance			0.853		0.879		0.551	
Panel B—discriminant validity.	
Constructs	1	2	3	4		5	6	
1. Environmental uncertainties	0.913							
2. Environmental strategy	0.563	0.803						
3. Technology	0.645	0.594	0.815					
4. Adoption of sustainability practices	0.825	0.612	0.711	0.941				
5. EMA tools	0.713	0.671	0.681	0.806		0.925		
6. Environmental performance	0.650	0.502	0.540	0.779		0.665	0.832	
Panel C—explanatory power of the model.	
Constructs			R2			R2 adjusted	
Adoption of sustainability practices			0.745			0.741		
EMA tools			0.648			0.642		
Environmental performance			0.611			0.606		

TABLE 1 | Measurement model.

Note: bold values presented diagonally represent Cronbach's alpha.
Abbreviations: AVE = average variance extracted, CR = composite reliability.

model, where the PLS algorithm was applied using 300 iterations. At this stage, the following three key criteria were thoroughly assessed: (i) reliability, (ii) convergent validity, and (iii) discriminant validity (Hair et al. 2016), as outlined in Table 1.
The second stage focused on the structural model, using 5000 resamples with the bootstrapping technique, which is essential for assessing the strength of hypothesized relationships through path analysis. Path analysis accounts for error terms and accommodates relatively small sample sizes for PLS estimation (Hair et al. 2016). The constructs were modeled as reflective, assuming a certain degree of correlation among the items within each construct.
Regarding the descriptive statistics, the majority of respondents were male (64%), aged between 41 and 60 years (68%), and had completed higher education (90%), with 34% holding graduate degrees. The most common roles were partner- owner (32%), winemaker (24%), and manager (15%), suggesting that many wineries are family- owned. Over half of the respondents (53%) reported working in their organization for more than 10 years.
Most wineries are located in the southern region of Brazil (79%), with 88% cultivating grapes and 72% producing wine primarily from conventional grapes. This contrasts with the European wine market, which is more advanced in organic and biodynamic production. For example, studies suggested that 48.4% of Italian wineries hold organic production labels and 12.5% biodynamic certifications (Steur et al. 2020); 48% of Greek wineries use organic grape- growing methods and 15% produce both organic and natural wines (Karagiannis and Metaxas 2020); and 45% of Spanish wineries offer organic, biodynamic, or natural wines (Fuentes- Fernández et al. 2022). These indicate the need for sector- specific strategies and public policy incentives to promote agricultural techniques that support organic and biodynamic grape cultivation. Such initiatives would contribute to the preservation of water, soil, animal, and plant resources, respond to consumer demand for environmentally and food safetyconscious products, and foster competitive differentiation in both national and international markets.
4		| Results
4.1		| Measurement Model

10990836, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bse.70437 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [25/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

We assessed construct validity and reliability using the PLS algorithm, following the guidelines of Hair et al. (2016). The measurement model tests whether items validly and reliably capture their underlying constructs by examining the following three criteria: (1) item consistency via factor loadings (threshold 
≥ 0.40); (2) convergent validity via average variance extracted (AVE ≥ 0.50); and (3) reliability through Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability, and rho_A. To improve model fit, we excluded a few items with loadings below the recommended cutoff, consistent with established practice. All remaining constructs demonstrated acceptable reliability, with Cronbach's alpha values exceeding 0.70 (see Table 1). Notably, environmental sustainability practices, use of EMA, and environmental uncertainty showed high internal consistency (α > 0.90). Composite reliability and rho_A coefficients further confirmed construct reliability.
Regarding the validity, convergent validity was supported, as all AVEs surpassed the 0.50 threshold. Overall, these indicators confirm that the constructs are both theoretically grounded and empirically robust. Discriminant validity was evaluated using the Fornell–Larcker criterion. This indicates that each construct is empirically distinct from the others. The proposed model is robust, as the independent variables explain more than 50% of the consequent variables. The “environmental performance” construct, which is the dependent variable, presents an adjusted R2 greater than 60%, as well as the EMA use construct, while the construct adoption of sustainability practices presents an adjusted R2 greater than 70%. These data demonstrate that the proposed model is not only supported by the literature but also supports the empirical evidence previously highlighted.
4.2		| Structural Model
The bootstrapping technique was used with 5000 subsamples and a confidence interval at the 10% level. The results of the structural model are presented in Table 2. In this study, we predict the association between contingency factors and the adoption of sustainability practices and the use of EMA tools. The results support the study's first hypothesis, which posited a positive relationship between contingency factors and the adoption of sustainability practices in wineries. Specifically, (H1a) environmental uncertainty positively influences the adoption of sustainability practices (B = 0.587; p < 0.01); (H1b) environmental strategy positively influences the adoption of sustainability practices (B = 0.130; p < 0.05); and (H1c) technology positively influences the adoption of sustainability practices (B = 0.255; p < 0.01). These effects confirm H1 and are consistent with the literature suggesting that contingency factors influence organizational structures (Chenhall 2003) and that organizational practices are shaped by the context in which firms operate (Christ and Burritt 2013b). This reinforces the view that contingency factors affect the adoption of sustainability practices (Abdel- Maksoud et al. 2016; Agi and Nishant 2017; Maletič et al. 2018).

Direct effects	
	B	T stat	P	
Environmental uncertainties ➔ Adoption of sustainability practices	0.587	10.193	0.000***	
Environmental strategy ➔ Adoption of sustainability practices	0.130	2.57	0.010***	
Technology ➔ Adoption of sustainability practices	0.255	3.778	0.000***	
Environmental uncertainties ➔ EMA tools	0.373	5.467	0.000***	
Environmental strategy ➔ EMA tools	0.307	4.07	0.000***	
Technology ➔ EMA tools	0.258	2.957	0.003***	
Adoption of sustainability practices ➔ Environmental performance	0.692	7.881	0.000***	
EMA tools ➔ Environmental performance	0.108	0.991	0.322	
Indirect effects	
	B	T stat	P	
Environmental uncertainties ➔ Adoption of sustainability practices ➔ Environmental performance	0.406	5.946	0.000***	
Environmental strategy ➔ Adoption of sustainability practices ➔ Environmental performance	0.090	2.408	0.016**	
Technology ➔ Adoption of sustainability practices ➔ Environmental performance	0.177	3.514	0.000***	
Environmental uncertainties ➔ EMA tools ➔ Environmental performance	0.040	0.957	0.338	
Environmental strategy ➔ EMA tools ➔ Environmental performance	0.033	0.938	0.348	
Technology ➔ EMA tools ➔ Environmental performance	0.028	0.917	0.359	
*indicates 10% significance.
**indicates 5% significance.
***indicates 1% significance.	
Business Strategy and the Environment, 2025			9	

TABLE 2 | Structural model.

10990836, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bse.70437 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [25/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

The results also show that contingency factors influence the use of EMA tools. Specifically, (H2a) environmental uncertainty leads to greater use of EMA tools in wineries (B = 0.373; p < 0.01); (H2b) environmental strategy positively impacts the use of EMA tools (B = 0.307; p < 0.01); and (H2c) technology positively influences the use of EMA tools (B = 0.258; p < 0.01). These findings largely support H2 and align with prior management accounting literature that links contingency factors to the use of management control systems (Chenhall 2003; Chenhall 2006), as well as to the adoption of EMA tools. In high- uncertainty environments, access to information helps managers improve decision- making and seek solutions to reduce environmental impact (Latan et al. 2018). Moreover, as organizations adopt proactive environmental strategies in response to environmental challenges, they tend to utilize EMA tools that support sustainability- related objectives (Christ and Burritt 2013b; Christ 2014; Latan et al. 2018; Gunarathne et al. 2023).
To examine how the adoption of sustainability practices and the use of EMA tools translate organizational intentions into effective sustainability outcomes, leading to the rational use of natural resources, the third hypothesis (H3) was tested. It posited that the adoption of sustainability practices positively influences environmental performance in wineries. This hypothesis was supported (B = 0.692; p < 0.01). However, H4, which proposed that the use of EMA tools positively influences environmental performance (B = 0.108; p > 0.10), was not supported.
To further the analysis, mediation effects were tested to evaluate whether the adoption of sustainability practices mediates the relationship between contingency factors and environmental performance. The results confirm that (H5a) environmental uncertainty (B = 0.406; p < 0.01), (H5b) environmental strategy (B = 0.090; p < 0.05), and (H5c) technology (B = 0.177; p < 0.01) positively influence environmental performance through the adoption of sustainability practices. In contrast, H6 was not supported, as there was no significant mediation effect in the relationship between contingency factors and environmental performance via the use of EMA tools.
4.3		| Robustness Analysis
For an additional analysis, the effects of contingency factors, the adoption of sustainability practices, and the use of EMA tools on financial and nonfinancial performance were explored. Regarding financial performance, the results shown in Table 3 are noteworthy, as they reveal that the adoption of sustainability practices positively influences financial performance in wineries (B = 0.587; p < 0.01), and the use of EMA tools also positively impacts financial performance (B = 0.213; p < 0.05). Concerning the analysis of contingency factors and their impact on organizational outcomes, the robustness analysis shows that environmental uncertainty (B = 0.348; p < 0.01), environmental strategy (B = 0.074; p < 0.05), and technology (B = 0.149; p < 0.01) have positive effects on financial performance, when mediated by the adoption of sustainability practices. Additionally, we observed that the use of EMA tools positively mediates the effects of environmental uncertainty (B = 0.078; p < 0.05), environmental strategy (B = 0.066; p < 0.05), and technology (B = 0.055; p < 0.05) on financial performance, unlike in the main analysis (Model 1), where the mediating role of EMA was not supported. Thus, we infer that when predicting financial performance, the use of EMA is essential and considered useful, as shown in Table 3.
The results also demonstrate that the adoption of sustainability practices has a positive impact on nonfinancial performance (B = 0.370; p < 0.01), and the use of EMA tools likewise positively influences nonfinancial performance in wineries (B = 0.433; p < 0.01). Furthermore, the results show that environmental uncertainty (B = 0.216; p < 0.01), environmental strategy (B = 0.048; p < 0.05), and technology (B = 0.096; p < 0.01) positively influence nonfinancial performance through the adoption of sustainability practices. The use of EMA tools also facilitates the impact of environmental uncertainty (B = 0.154; p < 0.05), environmental strategy (B = 0.137; p < 0.01), and technology (B = 0.114; p < 0.05) on nonfinancial performance. Overall, this research supports the prediction of a positive impact of contingency factors on organizational outcomes (both financial and nonfinancial) through the adoption of sustainability practices and the use of EMA tools.
5		| Discussion
5.1		| Contingent Factors, Adoption of Sustainability Practices, and Use of EMA Tools
The existing literature has explored the relationship between contingent factors and the adoption of sustainability practices. Previous studies (e.g., Christ and Burritt 2013b; Maletič et al. 2018; Elhossade et al. 2021) have shown that stakeholder pressure, environmental uncertainties, and environmental strategy influence the implementation of sustainability practices. However, these studies have focused on purchasing strategies and difficulties in predicting demand and competition. Moreover, they examined other contexts, such as the USA, New Zealand, Italy, and Portugal, highlighting the influence of regulations, sector proactivity, and product quality as key drivers of sustainability practice adoption. Our study advances this literature by showing that, in the wine sector, the association between contingent factors and the adoption of sustainability practices is essential to achieving sustainable objectives. Specifically, we demonstrate that environmental uncertainties promote the implementation of sustainability practices involving product design, internal environmental management, and purchasing and supplier selection among others, as managers may feel compelled to meet customer demands or adopt new practices that enable wineries to adapt to changes. We also show that environmental strategy, such as integrating environmental issues into goals, reward systems focused on ecological matters, environmental investments, quality management, and new product development, supports the adoption of more sustainable practices. Finally, we illustrate that technology plays a crucial role in designing sustainability practices, as it facilitates cleaner production processes, product traceability, and the development of information systems for environmental management.
Our study contributes to the literature by expanding the understanding of these factors within the Brazilian wine sector. Managers reported that the low adoption of organic and biodynamic grape cultivation, along with other less sustainable practices, may undermine the sustainability behavior of Brazilian wineries. This is aligned with prior studies (Baird et al. 2018; Gázquez- Abad et al. 2015; Steur et al. 2020; Trigo and Silva 2022), which identify financial constraints, lack of

Panel A: model 2—analysis of financial performance	
	B	T	P	
Direct effect				
Adoption of sustainability practices ➔ Financial performance	0.587	7.721	0.000***	
EMA tools ➔ Financial performance	0.213	2.495	0.013**	
Indirect effect				
Environmental uncertainties ➔ Adoption of sustainability practices ➔ Financial performance	0.348	6.163	0.000***	
Environmental strategy ➔ Adoption of sustainability practices ➔ Financial performance	0.074	2.402	0.016**	
Technology ➔ Adoption of sustainability practices ➔ Financial performance	0.149	3.348	0.001***	
Environmental uncertainties ➔ EMA tools ➔ Financial performance	0.078	2.058	0.040**	
Environmental strategy ➔ EMA tools ➔ Financial performance	0.066	2.037	0.042**	
Technology ➔ EMA tools ➔ Financial performance	0.055	2.118	0.034**	
Panel B: model 3—analysis of nonfinancial performance	
	B	T	P	
Direct effect				
Adoption of sustainability practices ➔ Nonfinancial performance	0.370	4.223	0.000***	
Use of EMA ➔ Nonfinancial performance	0.433	4.541	0.000***	
Indirect effect				
Environmental uncertainties ➔ Adoption of sustainability practices ➔ Nonfinancial performance	0.216	4.023	0.000***	
Environmental strategy ➔ Adoption of sustainability practices ➔ Nonfinancial performance	0.048	2.068	0.039**	
Technology ➔ Adoption of sustainability practices ➔ Nonfinancial performance	0.096	2.769	0.006***	
Environmental uncertainties ➔ EMA tools ➔ Nonfinancial performance	0.154	3.575	0.000***	
Environmental strategy ➔ EMA tools ➔ Nonfinancial performance	0.137	3.078	0.002***	
Technology ➔ EMA tools ➔ Nonfinancial performance	0.114	2.337	0.019**	

TABLE 3 | Financial and nonfinancial performance analysis.

*indicates 10% significance.
**indicates 5% significance.
***indicates 1% significance.

government support, and low consumer willingness to pay more for ecological wines as recurring barriers. Thus, this study broadens the discussion on sustainability by demonstrating that, to promote the adoption of sustainable practices in wineries, it is essential to integrate environmental strategies, leverage technology to improve environmental management, and remain mindful of uncertainties in the industry.
On the other hand, our results distinguish the design approach to sustainability practices from the use of EMA tools. We show that contingent factors also positively impact the use of EMA tools in wineries. We contend that environmental uncertainties, such as the scarcity of natural resources, lead to greater use of EMA tools in wineries. This evidence aligns with previous studies suggesting that such uncertainties require greater control of resource consumption to mitigate risks and avoid penalties (Christ 2014; Gunarathne and Lee 2021; Zhen and Rahman 2024), as well as to meet stakeholder pressures (Elhossade et al. 2021). Thus, firms facing environmental challenges seek precise information to improve their decisions and reduce negative impacts (Latan et al. 2018). Moreover, we illustrate that environmental strategy is essential for wineries to increase the extent of EMA tool use at both the operational and strategic levels. This is consistent with prior literature arguing that organizations with clear environmental strategies require tools to assist in sustainability management (Christ 2014; Appannan et al. 2023; Gunarathne et al. 2023). This reinforces the argument that companies committed to sustainable strategies adopt management systems to monitor and optimize the use of natural resources (Christ and Burritt 2013b; Appannan et al. 2023).

10990836, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bse.70437 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [25/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

Finally, we suggest that reliance on technology leads to greater use of EMA tools because technological advancements enable more efficient environmental management by providing real- time indicators that improve decision- making (Elhossade et al. 2021; Zhen and Rahman 2024). For example, digitalization and integrated systems facilitate emission traceability and resource consumption monitoring, promoting more accurate and effective environmental impact management. Despite these convergences, some studies suggest that the use of EMA tools may be limited in sectors with low regulatory pressure or where managers' perceptions of environmental benefits remain underdeveloped (Zhen and Rahman 2024). However, our findings reinforce that, in the wine sector, the use of EMA is driven by contingent factors.
Thus, this study contributes to the EMA literature by highlighting specific factors that increase its use in the winery context. By addressing how environmental uncertainties, environmental strategies, and technological advancements impact environmental management in this sector, we expand the understanding of the mechanisms that drive sustainability in this setting and emphasize the relevance of EMA for continuous improvement in natural resource management.
5.2		| Adoption of Sustainability Practices, Use of EMA Tools, and Environmental Performance
Consistent with previous literature (Maletič et al. 2018; Abdallah and Al- Ghwayeen 2020), our study shows that sustainability practices lead to improvements in wineries' environmental performance. We contend that the adoption of these practices contributes to the prevention and mitigation of environmental crises, reduced consumption of natural resources, waste minimization, and increased recycling rates. Additionally, our robustness analysis confirms that the implementation of sustainability practices also influences financial and nonfinancial performance, aligning with previous studies that highlight the impact of these practices on enhancing corporate image and consumer satisfaction (Raut et al. 2019; Sharma et al. 2017). Thus, our findings reinforce existing findings and suggest that wineries adjust their practices according to the conditions they face.
Contrary to our initial expectations, we were unable to demonstrate that EMA tools (e.g., product life cycle analysis, integrated performance panels, inventory analysis) have a positive impact on environmental performance in the wine sector. Moreover, this study did not find evidence that EMA mediates the relationship between contingency factors and environmental performance. Although prior studies have stated that EMA tools play a crucial role in promoting sustainability in the wine sector (Christ 2014), supporting decision- making and control (Gunarathne et al. 2023), and assisting in regulatory compliance and environmental legitimacy (Swalih et al. 2024), factors such as the complexity and high cost of EMA tools (Hyvönen 2007), as well as the tension between their long- term benefits and managers' focus on immediate returns (Elhossade et al. 2021), may have led to the unexpected results. Our findings suggest that the Brazilian wine sector diverges from other industries in its use of EMA tools, which appears to lead more to economic results rather than environmental performance. As argued by Appannan et al. (2023), EMA serves to mobilize strategic resources toward achieving organizational objectives; our analysis indicates that Brazilian wineries' EMA tend to prioritize financial and nonfinancial outcomes over environmental concerns. This pattern may reflect the dynamics observed by Gunarathne et al. (2023), who found that a focus on short- term gains often impedes investment in long- term environmental performance. The cost–benefit relationship of EMA typically unfolds over the long term (Elhossade et al. 2021), which may lead managers to favor tools that support short- term decision- making in the pursuit of social legitimacy (Swalih et al. 2024). Consequently, firms may prioritize short- term actions to meet immediate operational demands, such as delivery schedules, incremental improvements in product quality, or short- term financial performance (Gunarathne and Lee 2021). When financial resources are limited, EMA tends to be used restrictively, focusing on immediate returns, suggesting that EMA is employed merely for compliance and at a preventive stage. Additionally, the lack of integration between accounting and other departments responsible for collecting environmental information hinders the full utilization of EMA tools. For example, environmental budgeting and performance evaluation may be underutilized, which could explain the reduced effectiveness of these tools (Gunarathne and Lee 2021). We recommend that managers use EMA in a flexible manner, avoiding an overly rigid approach that focuses solely on financial performance at the expense of environmental sustainability in the short term.
6		| Conclusions
This research aimed to analyze the influence of contingency factors on the adoption of sustainability practices and the use of EMA tools to improve environmental performance in the context of the wine sector. Based on a survey of 171 wineries and the use of structural equation modeling, the results support the literature grounded in contingency theory, showing that external factors (environmental uncertainties) and internal factors (environmental strategy and technology) influence the adoption of sustainability practices and the use of EMA tools in wineries.
6.1		| Theoretical Implications
The results of our study add to previous literature (Christ and Burritt 2013b; Gunarathne and Lee 2021) by demonstrating the extent to which contingent factors influence the adoption of sustainability practices in wineries. We specifically addressed three elements (uncertainties, technologies, and strategies) and illustrated that these factors drive winery managers to adopt sustainable practices. Thus, we show that environmental uncertainties pose significant challenges to winery firms, requiring responsible responses to mitigate environmental impacts. With respect to environmental strategy, we highlight the importance of this factor in translating wineries' values and mission into concrete sustainability actions, thereby motivating investments in environmental improvements. This finding contributes to prior research on the role of strategy in the development of sustainability KPIs (Pondeville et al. 2013). Our evidence also demonstrates that technology, as a contingency factor, supports environmental management by enabling more efficient production processes and enhancing the control of resources and environmental information, aligning with prior discussions (Hofmann et al. 2012; Agi and Nishant 2017; Sharma et al. 2017). Together, these findings suggest that the adoption of sustainability practices is not an isolated managerial choice but rather a contingent response to internal and external factors that shape environmental management in the wine sector.

Moreover, this study demonstrates that contingency factors shape the use of EMA tools, aligning with prior research in management accounting (Christ and Burritt 2013a; Christ 2014; Appannan 2023; Martínez- Falcó et al. 2025). We extend this literature by demonstrating that, beyond the alignment of EMA with winery strategies, the salience of environmental uncertainty and the adoption of technologies significantly influence EMA use in the wine sector. Our findings further reveal that Brazilian wineries often mobilize EMA primarily in pursuit of financial objectives, subordinating environmental targets. This selective use of EMA shows its framing as a cost- saving device rather than as a comprehensive tool for environmental stewardship, thereby constraining its potential to short- term outcomes.
These insights contribute to the management accounting literature by problematizing the instrumental use of EMA and highlighting the tensions between economic rationality and environmental responsibility. We bring attention to the trade- offs managers navigate between short- and long- term sustainability goals and argue that reconciling these temporal orientations is critical to enhancing the design and effectiveness of environmental management controls (Monteiro et al. 2025). In doing so, this study deepens our understanding of how sustainability practices, shaped by contingency factors, affect the environmental, financial, and nonfinancial performance of firms operating in environmentally sensitive industries such as wineries.
6.2		| Practical Implications
This study offers several practical implications for practitioners, particularly winery managers. First, our findings highlight the importance of proactively responding to stakeholder pressures (such as those exerted by customers, suppliers, competitors, communities, NGOs, and regulatory bodies), and broader environmental uncertainties, including climate change and water scarcity. In this context, managers are encouraged to identify and leverage technological opportunities and to align sustainability efforts with organizational strategy. Practical actions might include reducing the use of chemical inputs (e.g., pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides) through ecological technologies, implementing water- efficient production processes, investing in alternative energy sources to lower consumption, and advancing waste management initiatives. Second, the findings suggest that managers may benefit from reframing EMA tools as strategic enablers of both environmental and financial performance. Although sustainable practices are increasingly adopted, there is limited recognition of the potential for EMA tools to enhance decision quality and operational alignment. In many cases, the underutilization of EMA stems from a misfit between tool complexity and organizational capacity, particularly among small- and medium- sized wineries. This gap highlights the need for sector- specific adaptations that align tool design with managerial needs and resource constraints. Third, the study points to the broader necessity of fostering organizational awareness and dialogue about climate change and resource scarcity. These environmental pressures not only threaten viticultural viability but also have cascading effects on tourism, employment, income generation, and the long- term sustainability of firms in the wine sector. Creating spaces for such strategic discussion may enable managers to anticipate disruptions and craft more resilient, future- oriented sustainability strategies.
6.3		| Limitations and Future Research
This paper has some limitations. First, although this study contributes to the existing literature by emphasizing the need for more empirical evidence regarding EMA and performance, our results reflect the perceptions of Brazilian winery managers. Brazil is a country with relatively low representation in the international wine market, specific local legislation and a relatively recent tradition of wine consumption. These factors suggest that the results should be interpreted with caution when generalizing to other contexts. Future research could further investigate the use of EMA in countries where wine culture plays a more prominent role in economic development and where environmental challenges differ. Second, although we demonstrated a strong relationship between contingent factors, management tools and performance, there are specific nuances that could be more deeply explored within the complex and dynamic contexts of sustainability, particularly in times of uncertainty and rapid technological transformation. Furthermore, there is scope for future research to further explore the impact of digital transformation in the winery sector. Also, more empirical studies are needed to promote the use of EMA tools beyond transparency and accountability purposes, aiming to expand understanding in this area. EMA provides opportunities for measurement, control, and the provision of information that can improve environmental management.
Acknowledgements
The Article Processing Charge for the publication of this research was funded by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) (ROR identifier: 00x0ma614).
Funding
This study was supported by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior and the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico.
References
Abdallah, A. B., and W. S. Al- Ghwayeen. 2020. “Green Supply Chain Management and Business Performance: The Mediating Roles of Environmental and Operational Performances.” Business Process Management Journal 26, no. 2: 489–512. https://doi. org/ 10. 1108/ BPMJ- 03- 2018- 0091.
Abdel- Kader, M., and R. Luther. 2008. “The Impact of Firm Characteristics on Management Accounting Practices: A UK- Based Empirical Analysis.” British Accounting Review 40, no. 1: 2–27. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. bar. 2007. 11. 003.
Abdel- Maksoud, A., M. Jabbour, and M. Abdel- Kader. 2021. “Stakeholder pressure, eco- control systems, and firms’ performance: Empirical evidence from UK manufacturers.” Accounting Forum 45, no. 4: 325–355. https://doi. org/ 10. 1080/01559 982. 2020. 1827697.

10990836, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bse.70437 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [25/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

Abdel- Maksoud, A., H. Kamel, and S. Elbanna. 2016. “Investigating Relationships Between Stakeholders' Pressure, Eco- Control Systems and
Hotel Performance.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 59: 95–104. https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijhm. 2016. 09. 006.
Afum, E., V. Y. Osei-Ahenkan, Y. Agyabeng- Mensah, J. A. Owusu, L. Y. Kusi, and J. Ankomah. 2020. “Green Manufacturing Practices and Sustainable Performance Among Ghanaian Manufacturing SMEs: The Explanatory Link of Green Supply Chain Integration.” Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 31, no. 6: 1457–1475. https://doi. org/ 10. 1108/ MEQ- 01- 2020- 0019.
Agi, M. A., and R. Nishant. 2017. “Understanding Influential Factors on Implementing Green Supply Chain Management Practices: An Interpretive Structural Modelling Analysis.” Journal of Environmental Management 188: 351–363. https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.jenvm an. 2016. 11. 081.
Appannan, J., R. Mohd Said, T. Ong, and R. Senik. 2023. “Promoting sustainable development by means of strategies, environmental management accounting and environmental performance,” Empresarial e Meio Ambiente, no. 4: 1914–1930. https://doi. org/ 10. 1002/ bse. 3227.
Appannan, J., R. Mohd Said, T. Ong, and R. Senik. 2023. “Promoting Sustainable Development by Means of Strategies, Environmental Management Accounting and Environmental Performance.” Business Strategy and the Environment 32, no. 4: 1914–1930. https://doi. org/ 10. 1002/ bse. 3227.
Asiaei, K., N. Bontis, R. Alizadeh, and M. Yaghoubi. 2022. “Green Intellectual Capital and Environmental Management Accounting: Natural Resource Orchestration in Favor of Environmental Performance.” Business Strategy and the Environment 31, no. 1: 76–93. https://doi. org/ 10. 1002/ bse. 2875.
Ateş, M. A., J. Bloemhof, E. M. Van Raaij, and F. Wynstra. 2012. “Proactive Environmental Strategy in a Supply Chain Context: The Mediating Role of Investments.” International Journal of Production Research 50, no. 4: 1079–1095. https://doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00207 543. 2011. 555426.
Baird, T., C. M. Hall, and P. Castka. 2018. “New Zealand Winegrowers Attitudes and Behaviours Towards Wine Tourism and Sustainable Winegrowing.” Sustainability 10, no. 3: 797. https://doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su100 30797 .
Bandinelli, R., D. Acuti, V. Fani, B. Bindi, and G. Aiello. 2020. “Environmental Practices in the Wine Industry: An Overview of the Italian Market.” British Food Journal 122, no. 5: 1625–1646. https://doi. org/ 10. 1108/ BFJ- 08- 2019- 0653.
Bresciani, S., S. U. Rehman, G. Giovando, and G. M. Alam. 2023. “The Role of Environmental Management Accounting and Environmental Knowledge Management Practices Influence on Environmental Performance: Mediated- Moderate Model.” Journal of Knowledge Management 27, no. 4: 896–918. https://doi. org/ 10. 1108/ JKM- 12- 2021- 0953.
Bui, B., and C. De Villiers. 2017. “Management Control Systems To Support Sustainability and Integrated Reporting.” In Sustainability Accounting and Integrated Reporting, edited by J. Guthrie, G. Maroun, L. English, and M. A. Parker, 121–148. Routledge.
Burritt, R. L. 2004. “Environmental Management Accounting: Roadblocks on the Way to the Green and Pleasant Land.” Business Strategy and the Environment 13, no. 1: 13–32. https://doi. org/ 10. 1002/ bse. 379.
Burritt, R. L., K. L. Christ, H. G. Rammal, and S. Schaltegger. 2020. “Multinational Enterprise Strategies for Addressing Sustainability: The Need for Consolidation.” Journal of Business Ethics 164: 389–410. https://doi. org/ 10. 1007/s1055 1- 018- 4066- 0.
Burritt, R. L., C. Herzig, S. Schaltegger, and T. Viere. 2019. “Diffusion of Environmental Management Accounting for Cleaner Production: Evidence From Some Case Studies.” Journal of Cleaner Production 224, no. 1: 479–491. https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.jclep ro. 2019. 03. 227.
Burritt, R. L., S. Schaltegger, and K. L. Christ. 2023. “Environmental Management Accounting–Developments Over the Last 20 Years From a
Framework Perspective.” Australian Accounting Review 33, no. 4: 336– 351. https://doi. org/ 10. 1111/auar. 12407 .
Burritt, R. L., T. Hahn, and S. Schaltegger. 2002. “Towards a comprehensive framework for environmental management accounting: Links between business actors and environmental management accounting tools.” Environmental and Resource Accounting 12, no. 27: 39–50.
Chaudhry, N. I., and M. Amir. 2020. “From Institutional Pressure to the Sustainable Development of Firm: Role of Environmental Management Accounting Implementation and Environmental Proactivity.” Business Strategy and the Environment 29, no. 8: 3542–3554. https://doi. org/ 10. 1002/ bse. 2595.
Chenhall, R. H. 2003. “Management Control Systems Design Within Its Organizational Context: Findings From Contingency- Based Research and Directions for the Future.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 28, no. 2–3: 127–168. https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0361 - 3682(01) 00027 - 7.
Chenhall, R. H. 2006. “Theorizing Contingencies in Management Control Systems Research.” In Handbooks of management accounting research, vol. 1, 163–205. Elsevier. https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S1751 - 3243(06) 01006 - 6.
Christ, K. L. 2014. “Water Management Accounting and the Wine Supply Chain: Empirical Evidence From Australia.” British Accounting Review 46, no. 4: 379–396. https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. bar. 2014. 10. 003.
Christ, K. L., and R. L. Burritt. 2013a. “Critical Environmental Concerns in Wine Production: An Integrative Review.” Journal of Cleaner Production 53: 232–242. https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.jclep ro. 2013. 04. 007.
Christ, K. L., and R. L. Burritt. 2013b. “Environmental Management Accounting: The Significance of Contingent Variables for Adoption.” Journal of Cleaner Production 41: 163–173.
Devesa- Rey, R., X. Vecino, J. L. Varela- Alende, M. T. Barral, J. M. Cruz, and A. B. Moldes. 2011. “Valorization of Winery Waste vs. the Costs of Not Recycling.” Waste Management 31, no. 11: 2327–2335. https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.wasman. 2011. 06. 001.
Donaldson, L. 2001. The Contingency Theory of Organizations. Sage.
Doorasamy, M. 2015. “Theoretical Developments in Environmental Management Accounting and the Role and Importance of MFCA.” Foundations of Management 7, no. 1: 37–52. https://doi. org/ 10. 1515/ fman- 2015- 0024.
Elhossade, S. S., H. Abdo, and A. Mas' ud. 2021. “Impact of Institutional and Contingent Factors on Adopting Environmental Management Accounting Systems: The Case of Manufacturing Companies in Libya.” Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting 19, no. 4: 497–539. https://doi. org/ 10. 1108/JFRA- 08- 2020- 0224.
Fensterseifer, J. E. 2007. “The Emerging Brazilian Wine Industry: Challenges and Prospects for the Serra Gaúcha Wine Cluster.” International Journal of Wine Business Research 19, no. 3: 187–206. https://doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 17511 06071 0817221.
Ferreira, A., C. Moulang, and B. Hendro. 2010. “Environmental Management Accounting and Innovation: An Exploratory Analysis.” Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 23, no. 7: 920–948. https://doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 09513 57101 1080180.
Forbes, S. L., and T. A. De Silva. 2012. “Analysis of Environmental Management Systems in New Zealand Wineries.” International Journal of Wine Business Research 24, no. 2: 98–114. https://doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 17511 06121 1238902.
Fragoso, R., and J. R. Figueira. 2021. “Wine Industry Supply Chain Network Design: An Application to the Wine Industry in Southern Portugal.” Journal of the Operational Research Society 72, no. 6: 1236– 1251. https://doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 01605 682. 2020. 1718015.
Fuentes- Fernández, R., J. Martínez- Falcó, E. Sánchez- García, and B. Marco- Lajara. 2022. “Does Ecological Agriculture Moderate the Relationship Between Wine Tourism and Economic Performance? A Structural Equation Analysis Applied to the Ribera Del Duero Wine Context.” Agriculture 12, no. 12: 2143. https://doi. org/ 10. 3390/agric ultur e1212 2143.
Gabzdylova, B., J. F. Raffensperger, and P. Castka. 2009. “Sustainability in the New Zealand Wine Industry: Drivers, Stakeholders and Practices.” Journal of Cleaner Production 17, no. 11: 992–998. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.jclep ro. 2009. 02. 015.
Gázquez- Abad, J. C., R. Huertas- García, M. D. Vázquez- Gómez, and A. Casas Romeo. 2015. “Drivers of Sustainability Strategies in Spain's Wine Tourism Industry.” Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 56, no. 1: 106– 117. https://doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 19389 65514 54965 .
Gerged, A. M., N. Zahoor, and C. J. Cowton. 2024. “Understanding the Relationship Between Environmental Management Accounting and Firm Performance: The Role of Environmental Innovation and Stakeholder Integration–Evidence From a Developing Country.” Management Accounting Research 62: 100865. https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. mar. 2023. 100865.
Gond, J. P., S. Grubnic, C. Herzig, and J. Moon. 2012. “Configuring Management Control Systems: Theorizing the Integration of Strategy and Sustainability.” Management Accounting Research 23, no. 3: 205– 223. https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. mar. 2012. 06. 003.
Gordon, L. A., and D. Miller. 1976. “A Contingency Framework for the Design of Accounting Information Systems.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 1, no. 1: 59–69. https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/0361- 3682(76) 90007 - 6.
Gunarathne, A. N., K. H. Lee, and P. K. Hitigala Kaluarachchilage. 2021. “Institutional Pressures, Environmental Management Strategy, and Organizational Performance: The Role of Environmental Management Accounting.” Business Strategy and the Environment 30, no. 2: 825–839. https://doi. org/ 10. 1002/ bse. 2656.
Gunarathne, N., and K. H. Lee. 2021. “Corporate Cleaner Production Strategy Development and Environmental Management Accounting: A Contingency Theory Perspective.” Journal of Cleaner Production 308: 127402. https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.jclep ro. 2021. 127402.
Gunarathne, N., K. H. Lee, and P. K. Hitigala Kaluarachchilage. 2023. “Tackling the Integration Challenge Between Environmental Strategy and environmental Management Accounting.” Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 36, no. 1: 63–95. https://doi. org/ 10. 1108/ AAAJ- 03- 2020- 4452.
Hair, J. F., Jr., G. T. M. Hult, C. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt. 2016. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS- SEM). Sage Publications.
Hofmann, K. H., G. Theyel, and C. H. Wood. 2012. “Identifying Firm Capabilities as Drivers of Environmental Management and Sustainability Practices–Evidence From Small and Medium- Sized Manufacturers.” Business Strategy and the Environment 21, no. 8: 530– 545. https://doi. org/ 10. 1002/ bse. 739.
Hsiao, P. C. K., C. de Villiers, C. Horner, and H. Oosthuizen. 2022. “A Review and Synthesis of Contemporary Sustainability Accounting Research and the Development of a Research Agenda.” Accounting and Finance 62, no. 4: 4453–4483. https://doi. org/ 10. 1111/acfi. 12936 .
Hutahayan, B. 2020. “The Mediating Role of Human Capital and Management Accounting Information System in the Relationship Between Innovation Strategy and Internal Process Performance and the Impact on Corporate Financial Performance.” Benchmarking: An International Journal 27, no. 4: 1289–1318. https://doi. org/ 10. 1108/ BIJ- 02- 2018- 0034.
Hyvönen, J. 2007. “Strategy, Performance Measurement Techniques and Information Technology of the Firm and Their Links to Organizational Performance.” Management Accounting Research 18, no. 3: 343–366. https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. mar. 2007. 02. 001.
International Organization for Grape and Wine (OIV). 2023. https:// www. oiv. int/.
Jasch, C. 2006. “Environmental Management Accounting (EMA) as the Next Step in the Evolution of Management Accounting.” Journal of Cleaner Production 14, no. 14: 1190–1193. https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.jclep ro. 2005. 08. 006.
Jun, X., J. Ai, L. Zheng, M. Lu, and J. Wang. 2024. “Impact of Information Technology and Industrial Development on Corporate ESG Practices: Evidence From a Pilot Program in China.” Economic Modelling 139: 106806. https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. econm od. 2024. 106806. Karagiannis, D., and T. Metaxas. 2020. “Sustainable Wine Tourism Development: Case Studies From the Greek Region of Peloponnese.” Sustainability 12, no. 12: 5223. https://doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su121 25223 .
Khanh, T. H. T., P. Rajagopal, N. T. T. Tram, and B. Bardai. 2024. “Environmental Strategy and Environmental Management Accounting as Contributors to Environmental and Financial Performance: The Case of Manufacturing Firms in Vietnam for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).” Journal of Ecohumanism 3, no. 8: 1518–1532. https://doi. org/ 10. 62754/ joe.v3i8. 4835.
Latan, H., C. J. C. Jabbour, A. B. L. de Sousa Jabbour, S. F. Wamba, and M. Shahbaz. 2018. “Effects of Environmental Strategy, Environmental Uncertainty and Top Management's Commitment on Corporate Environmental Performance: The Role of Environmental Management Accounting.” Journal of Cleaner Production 180: 297–306. https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.jclep ro. 2018. 01. 106.
Maas, K., S. Schaltegger, and N. Crutzen. 2016. “Integrating Corporate Sustainability Assessment, Management Accounting, Control, and Reporting.” Journal of Cleaner Production 136: 237–248. https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.jclep ro. 2016. 05. 008.
Maletič, M., D. Maletič, and B. Gomišček. 2018. “The Role of Contingency Factors on the Relationship Between Sustainability Practices and Organizational Performance.” Journal of Cleaner Production 171: 423– 433. https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.jclep ro. 2017. 09. 172.
Marco- Fondevila, M., J. Moneva, and F. Llena- Macarulla. 2020. “Accounting for Carbon Gluing Flows in the Wine Production Process. Case Study in a Spanish Winery.” Applied Sciences 10, no. 23: 8381. https://doi. org/ 10. 3390/app10 238381.
Marco- Lajara, B., P. C. Zaragoza- Sáez, J. Martínez- Falcó, and E. Sánchez- García. 2023. “Does Green Intellectual Capital Affect Green Innovation Performance? Evidence From the Spanish Wine Industry.” British Food Journal 125, no. 4: 1469–1487. https://doi. org/ 10. 1108/ BFJ- 03- 2022- 0298.
Marshall, R. S., M. Cordano, and M. Silverman. 2005. “Exploring Individual and Institutional Drivers of Proactive Environmentalism in the US Wine Industry.” Business Strategy and the Environment 14, no. 2: 92–109. https://doi. org/ 10. 1002/ bse. 433.
Martínez- Falcó, J., E. Sánchez- García, B. Marco- Lajara, and P. Zaragoza- Sáez. 2025. “Green Intellectual Capital and Sustainable Competitive Advantage: Unraveling Role of Environmental Management Accounting and Green Entrepreneurship Orientation.” Journal of Intellectual Capital 26, no. 1: 104–129. https://doi. org/ 10. 1108/ JIC- 07- 2024- 0204.
Martínez- Falcó, J., E. Sánchez- García, L. A. Millan-Tudela, and B. Marco- Lajara. 2023. “The Role of Green Agriculture and Green Supply Chain Management in the Green Intellectual Capital– Sustainable Performance Relationship: A Structural Equation Modeling Analysis Applied to the Spanish Wine Industry.” Agriculture 13, no. 2: 425. https://doi. org/ 10. 3390/agric ulture1302 0425.
Mello, L. M. R., and C. A. E. Machado. 2021. “Comunicado Técnico 223.” Embrapa. https://ainfo. cnptia. embrapa. br/digit al/ bitst ream/ item/ 227610/ 1/ ComTe c- 223- 21. pdf.
Monteiro, J., R. Malagueño, and R. J. Lunkes. 2025. “Eco- Control and Sustainability Strategy: How Organisations Juxtapose Tensions to Enhance Sustainability Performance? Accounting Forum. 1-24. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 01559 982. 2025. 2489239.
Morioka, S. N., and M. M. de Carvalho. 2016. “A Systematic Literature Review Towards a Conceptual Framework for Integrating Sustainability Performance Into Business.” Journal of Cleaner Production 136: 134– 146. https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.jclep ro. 2016. 01. 104.
Nave, A., R. Laurett, and A. do Paço. 2021. “Relation Between Antecedents, Barriers and Consequences of Sustainable Practices in the Wine Tourism Sector.” Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 20: 100584. https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.jdmm. 2021. 100584.
Pomarici, E., and R. Vecchio. 2019. “Will Sustainability Shape the Future Wine Market?” Wine Economics and Policy 8, no. 1: 1–4. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.wep. 2019. 05. 001.
Pondeville, S., V. Swaen, and Y. De Rongé. 2013. “Environmental Management Control Systems: The Role of Contextual and Strategic Factors.” Management Accounting Research 24, no. 4: 317–332. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. mar. 2013. 06. 007.
Qian, W., J. Hörisch, and S. Schaltegger. 2018. “Environmental Management Accounting and Its Effects on Carbon Management and Disclosure Quality.” Journal of Cleaner Production 174: 1608–1619. https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.jclep ro. 2017. 11. 092.
Raut, R. D., S. Luthra, B. E. Narkhede, S. K. Mangla, B. B. Gardas, and P. Priyadarshinee. 2019. “Examining the Performance Oriented Indicators for Implementing Green Management Practices in the Indian Agro Sector.” Journal of Cleaner Production 215: 926–943. https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.jclep ro. 2019. 01. 139.
Rodrigues, V. D. V., A. E. Wander, and F. S. d. Rosa. 2025. “Poultry EcoControls: Performance and Accounting.” Agriculture 15, no. 12: 1311. https://doi. org/ 10. 3390/agric ultur e1512 1311.
Rosa, F. S., R. J. Lunkes, and A. C. Mendes. 2020. “Environmental Management Accounting and Innovation in Water and Energy Reduction.” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 192: 621. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1066 1- 020- 08586 - 7.
Rugani, B., I. Vázquez- Rowe, G. Benedetto, and E. Benetto. 2013. “A Comprehensive Review of Carbon Footprint Analysis as an Extended Environmental Indicator in the Wine Sector.” Journal of Cleaner Production 54: 61–77. https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.jclep ro. 2013. 04. 036.
Sangle, S. 2010. “Empirical Analysis of Determinants of Adoption of Proactive Environmental Strategies in India.” Business Strategy and the Environment 19, no. 1: 51–63. https://doi. org/ 10. 1002/ bse. 651.
Sari, R. N., A. Pratadina, R. Anugerah, K. Kamaliah, and Z. M. Sanusi. 2021. “Effect of Environmental Management Accounting Practices on Organizational Performance: Role of Process Innovation as a Mediating Variable.” Business Process Management Journal 27, no. 4: 1296–1314. https://doi. org/ 10. 1108/ BPMJ- 06- 2020- 0264.
Schaltegger, S., K. L. Christ, J. Wenzig, and R. L. Burritt. 2022. “Corporate Sustainability Management Accounting and Multi- Level Links for Sustainability–A Systematic Review.” International Journal of Management Reviews 24, no. 4: 480–500. https://doi. org/ 10. 1111/ ijmr. 12288 .
Schaltegger, S., M. Bennett, R. L. Burritt, and C. Jasch (Eds.). 2008. Environmental management accounting for cleaner production. Springer.
Sharma, V. K., P. Chandna, and A. Bhardwaj. 2017. “Green Supply Chain Management Related Performance Indicators in Agro Industry: A Review.” Journal of Cleaner Production 141: 1194–1208. https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.jclep ro. 2016. 09. 103.
Silva, M. E., M. M. Fritz, and W. H. El- Garaihy. 2022. “Practice Theories and Supply Chain Sustainability: A Systematic Literature Review and a Research Agenda.” Modern Supply Chain Research and Applications 4, no. 1: 19–38. https://doi. org/ 10. 1108/ MSCRA- 01- 2021- 0001.
Sistema Integrado de Produtos e Estabelecimentos Agropecuários (SIPEAGRO). 2023. “MAPA - Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento.” https://dados. agric ultura. gov. br/datas et/sipeagro/resou rce/ 8ef7a4fc- f9d9- 495b- b3ae- a2ffe 931ff82.
Steur, H., H. Temmerman, X. Gellynck, and M. Canavari. 2020. “Drivers, Adoption, and Evaluation of Sustainability Practices in Italian Wine SMEs.” Business Strategy and the Environment 29, no. 2: 744–762. https://doi. org/ 10. 1002/ bse. 2436.
Swalih, M. M., R. Ram, and E. Tew. 2024. “Environmental Management Accounting for Strategic Decision- Making: A Systematic Literature Review.” Business Strategy and the Environment 33, no. 7: 6335–6367. https://doi. org/ 10. 1002/ bse. 3828.
Trigo, A., and P. Silva. 2022. “Sustainable Development Directions for Wine Tourism in Douro Wine Region, Portugal.” Sustainability 14: 3949. https://doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su140 73949 .
Wang, Z., Q. Wang, S. Zhang, and X. Zhao. 2018. “Effects of Customer and Cost Drivers on Green Supply Chain Management Practices and Environmental Performance.” Journal of Cleaner Production 189: 673– 682. https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.jclep ro. 2018. 04. 071.
Waterhouse, J. H., and P. Tiessen. 1978. “A Contingency Framework for Management Accounting Systems Research.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 3, no. 1: 65–76. https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/ 03613682(78) 90007 - 7.
Xu, Y., J. H. Cheah, J. F. Hair Jr., and Y. Liu. 2025. “Does EMA Implementation Promote Green Innovation? The Mediation Effects of Both Cross- Functional Coopetition and Supplier Co- Creation.” Business Strategy and the Environment 34, no. 1: 380–401. https://doi. org/ 10. 1002/ bse. 3987.
Zacharof, M. P. 2017. “Grape Winery Waste as Feedstock for Bioconversions: Applying the Biorefinery Concept.” Waste and Biomass Valorization 8, no. 4: 1011–1025. https://doi. org/ 10. 1007/s1264 9- 016- 9674- 2.
Zandi, G., and H. Lee. 2019. “Factors Affecting Environmental Management Accounting and Environmental Performance: An Empirical Assessment.” International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy 9, no. 6: 342–348. https://doi. org/ 10. 32479/ ijeep. 8369.
Zhen, T., and M. M. Rahman. 2024. “Greening Emerging Economies: Enhancing Environmental, Social, and Governance Performance Through Environmental Management Accounting and Green Financing.” Sustainability 16, no. 11: 4753. https://doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su161 14753 .
Appendix A Constructs
Variable		Item	Item description	Authors	
Contingency factors	Environmental uncertainties	EU1
EU2	Customer demands for ecological product.
Pressure from suppliers and trade associations.	Pondeville et al. (2013); Latan et al. (2018)
Pondeville et al. (2013); Latan et al. (2018)	
		EU3	Changes in competitors' environmental strategies.	Pondeville et al. (2013); Latan et al. (2018)	
		EU4	Pressure from the local community and NGOs.	Pondeville et al. (2013); Latan et al. (2018)	
		EU5	Environmental legislation and policies.	Pondeville et al. (2013); Latan et al. (2018)	
		EU6	Climate change or natural disasters.	Latan et al. (2018)	
		EU 7	Technological changes.	Latan et al. (2018)	
	Environmental strategy	ES1	Integration of environmental issues into strategic planning.	Christ and Burritt (2013b); Pondeville et al. (2013)	
		ES2	Integration of environmental goals with other corporate goals.	Christ and Burritt (2013b); Pondeville et al. (2013)	
		ES3	Integration of environmental indicators into reward systems.	Pondeville et al. (2013)	
		ES4	Integration of environmental criteria into investment decisions.	Pondeville et al. (2013)	
		ES5	Quality management includes reducing the environmental impact of products/processes.	Christ and Burritt (2013b); Pondeville et al. (2013)	
		ES6	Environmental issues are considered when developing new products.	Christ and Burritt (2013b); Pondeville et al. (2013)	
	Technology	TEC1	In cleaner production processes.	Hofmann et al. (2012);
Agi and Nishant (2017); Sharma et al. (2017)	
		TEC2	In information systems for integrating the company's internal areas.	Hofmann et al. (2012);
Agi and Nishant (2017); Sharma et al. (2017)	
		TEC3	For tracking the product in the production chain.	Hofmann et al. (2012);
Agi and Nishant (2017); Sharma et al. (2017)	
		TEC4	In information systems to support environmental management.	Hofmann et al. (2012);
Agi and Nishant (2017); Sharma et al. (2017)	

Variable		Item	Item description	Authors	
Design of sustainability practices	Product development (design)	SUP 1
SUP 2	Product design to reduce the consumption of raw materials, inputs, and/or energy.
Product design for packaging reuse and recycling.	Sharma et al. (2017)
Sharma et al. (2017)	
		SUP 3	Product design to reduce the use of harmful/ toxic material.	Sharma et al. (2017)	
		SUP 4	Product design to reduce solid and liquid waste.	Abdallah and Al- Ghwayeen (2020)	
	Internal environmental management	SUP 5	Formalized Environmental Management System (statement of environmental policy and goals).	Sharma et al. (2017)	
		SUP 6	Commitment of senior management to environmental management.	Sharma et al. (2017)	
		SUP 7	System for monitoring environmental laws and regulations.	Sharma et al. (2017)	
		SUP 8	Environmental audit.	Sharma et al. (2017)	
		SUP 9	Documented procedure to implement corrective action plan.	Sharma et al. (2017)	
		SUP 10	Supplier's environmental plan.	Sharma et al. (2017)	
		SUP 11	Environmental certification.	Sharma et al. (2017)	
	Purchasing and supplier selection
processes	SUP12
SUP 13	Cooperation with suppliers to achieve environmental goals and objectives.
Purchase of materials with environmental specifications.	Sharma et al. (2017)
Sharma et al. (2017)	
		SUP 14	Assessment of suppliers based on environmental criteria.	Sharma et al. (2017)	
		SUP 15	Partnerships with suppliers to develop products/processes that aim to reduce environmental impact.	Sharma et al. (2017)	
	Production process	SUP 16	Control system for processes and dangerous/ toxic substances.	Sharma et al. (2017)	
		SUP 17	Energy efficiency technology.	Sharma et al. (2017)	
		SUP 18	Waste minimization system.	Sharma et al. (2017)	
		SUP 19	Adoption of the 3Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle).	Sharma et al. (2017)	
		SUP 20	Emission control to control the greenhouse effect and CO2.	Sharma et al. (2017)	
	Distribution process and reverse logistics	SUP 21
SUP 22	Eco- friendly transportation and collaborative warehouses.
Multimodal ecological transport.	Sharma et al. (2017)
Sharma et al. (2017)	
		SUP 23	Recycling and reuse of materials.	Sharma et al. (2017)	
		SUP 24	Garbage collectors for waste.	Sharma et al. (2017)	
		SUP 25	Measures to reduce waste.	Sharma et al. (2017)	
	Cooperates with customers and suppliers	SUP 26
SUP 27	Sharing environmental goals with customers and suppliers.
Sharing environmental information with suppliers and customers.	Sharma et al. (2017)
Sharma et al. (2017)	
		SUP 28	Cooperation with customers for cleaner production.	Sharma et al. (2017)	

Variable	Item	Item description	Authors	
EMA tools (environmental	EMA1
management accounting)
EMA 2	Identification of environmental costs.	Christ and Burritt (2013b)
Estimation of environmental liabilities.	Christ and Burritt (2013b)	
EMA 3	Development and use of environmental	Christ and Burritt (2013b)
performance indicators.	
EMA4	Assessment of the product life cycle cost.	Christ and Burritt (2013b)	
EMA5	Product inventory analysis, product	Christ and Burritt (2013b)
improvement and environmental impact
analysis.	
EMA6	Assessment of potential environmental	Christ and Burritt (2013b)
impacts associated with investment
decisions.	
EMA7	Identification and analysis of materials and	Qian et al. (2018)
energy flows (inputs and outputs) in the
production process or provision of services.	
EMA8	Sustainability benchmarking (comparison	Qian et al. (2018)
of environmental performance with other
companies or sectors).	
Performance Environmental	EP1
performance
EP2	Reduction of atmospheric emissions.	Abdallah and Al- Ghwayeen (2020)
Reduction of liquid and solid waste.	Abdallah and Al- Ghwayeen (2020)	
EP3	Reduction in dangerous and/or toxic	Abdallah and Al- Ghwayeen (2020)
material consumption.	
EP4	Improvement of the company's image.	Latan et al. (2018)	
EP5	Compliance with environmental regulations.	Latan et al. (2018)	
EP6	Prevention and mitigation of environmental	Latan et al. (2018)
crises.	
EP7	Reduction in energy consumption.	Maletič et al. (2018).	
EP8	Reduction in raw material consumption.	Maletič et al. (2018).	
EP9	Increase in the rate of recycled materials.	Maletič et al. (2018).	
EP10	Reduced waste rate.	Maletič et al. (2018).	
EP11	Reduction in water consumption.	Wang et al. (2018)	
Financial	FP1	Reduction of operating costs.	Abdallah and Al- Ghwayeen (2020); Latan
et al. (2018)	
FP2	Increased sales.	Abdallah and Al- Ghwayeen (2020); Latan
et al. (2018)	
Nonfinancial	NFP1	Increased competitive advantage.	Latan et al. (2018)	
NFP2	Improvement in order delivery time.	Abdallah and Al- Ghwayeen (2020)	
NFP3	Product and service quality improvement.	Abdallah and Al- Ghwayeen (2020)	
NFP4	Customer loyalty.	Abdallah and Al- Ghwayeen (2020)	
NFP5	Increased number of innovations in	Maletič et al. 2018
products/services.	
NFP6	Increased market share.	Abdallah and Al- Ghwayeen (2020)	
NFP7	Increase in export orders.	Sharma et al. (2017)	
NFP8	Increased level of customer satisfaction.	Sharma et al. (2017)	
NFP9	Increased employee capacity.	Sharma et al. (2017)	
Source: Prepared by the authors (2023).
10990836, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bse.70437 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [25/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

Appendix B
Factor loadings for constructs items
Variable	Item	Factor loadings	Item description	
Environmental uncertainties	EU 1
EU 2	0.562
0.909	Customer demands for ecological product.
Pressure from suppliers and trade associations.	
	EU 3	0.858	Changes in competitors' environmental strategies.	
	EU 4	0.817	Pressure from the local community and NGOs.	
	EU 5	0.780	Environmental legislation and policies.	
	EU 6	0.858	Climate change or natural disasters.	
	EU 7	0.882	Technological changes.	
Environmental strategy	ES1a		Integration of environmental issues into strategic planning.	
	ES 2	0.758	Integration of environmental goals with other corporate goals.	
	ES 3	0.726	Integration of environmental indicators into reward systems.	
	ES 4	0.782	Integration of environmental criteria into investment decisions.	
	ES 5	0.698	Quality management includes reducing the environmental impact of products/ processes.	
	ES 6	0.749	Environmental issues are considered when developing new products.	
Technology	TEC1	0.686	In cleaner production processes.	
	TEC2	0.773	In information systems for integrating the company's internal areas.	
	TEC3	0.847	For tracking the product in the production chain.	
	TEC4	0.887	In information systems to support environmental management.	
Product development (design)	SUP 1a		Product design to reduce the consumption of raw materials, inputs, and/or energy.	
	SUP 2a		Product design for packaging reuse and recycling.	
	SUP 3a		Product design to reduce the use of harmful/toxic material.	
	SUP 4	0.544	Product design to reduce solid and liquid waste.	
Internal environmental management	SUP 5	0.539	Formalized environmental management system (statement of environmental policy and goals).	
	SUP 6a		Commitment of senior management to environmental management.	
	SUP 7a		System for monitoring environmental laws and regulations.	
	SUP 8a		Environmental Audit.	
	SUP 9	0.611	Documented procedure to implement corrective action plan.	
	SUP 10	0.729	Supplier's environmental plan.	
	SUP 11	0.768	Environmental certification.	
Purchasing and supplier	SUP12	0.702	Cooperation with suppliers to achieve environmental goals and objectives.	
selection processes	SUP 13	0.827	Purchase of materials with environmental specifications.	
	SUP 14	0.796	Assessment of suppliers based on environmental criteria.	
	SUP 15	0.840	Partnerships with suppliers to develop products/processes that aim to reduce environmental impact.	
Production process	SUP 16a		Control system for processes and dangerous/toxic substances.	
	SUP 17	0.673	Use of energy efficiency technology.	
	SUP 18	0.603	Waste minimization system.	
	SUP 19a		Adoption of the 3Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle).	
	SUP 20	0.782	Emission control to control the greenhouse effect and CO2.	

Variable	Item	Factor loadings	Item description	
Distribution process and reverse logistics	SUP 21
SUP 22	0.732
0.796	Eco- friendly transportation and collaborative warehouses.
Multimodal ecological transport.	
	SUP 23	0.4b	bRecycling and reuse of materials.	
	SUP 24a		Garbage collectors for waste.	
	SUP 25a		Measures to reduce waste.	
Cooperates with	SUP 26	0.706	Sharing environmental goals with customers and suppliers.	
customers and suppliers	SUP 27	0.800	Sharing environmental information with suppliers and customers.	
	SUP 28	0.855	Cooperation with customers for cleaner production.	
EMA tools	EMA1	0.714	Identification of environmental costs.	
(environmental
management accounting)	EMA 2	0.829	Estimation of environmental liabilities.	
	EMA 3	0.862	Development and use of environmental performance indicators.	
	EMA4	0.738	Assessment of the product life cycle cost.	
	EMA5	0.882	Product inventory analysis, product improvement and environmental impact analysis.	
	EMA6	0.773	Assessment of potential environmental impacts associated with investment decisions.	
	EMA7	0.867	Identification and analysis of materials and energy flows (inputs and outputs) in the production process or provision of services.	
	EMA8	0.793	Sustainability benchmarking (comparison of environmental performance with other companies or sectors).	
Environmental	EP1a		Reduction of atmospheric emissions.	
performance	EP2a		Reduction of liquid and solid waste.	
	EP3a		Reduction in dangerous and/or toxic material consumption.	
	EP4a		Improvement of the company's image.	
	EP5a		Compliance with environmental regulations.	
	EP6	0.552	Prevention and mitigation of environmental crises.	
	EP7	0.803	Reduction in energy consumption.	
	EP8	0.794	Reduction in raw material consumption.	
	EP9	0.736	Increase in the rate of recycled materials.	
	EP10	0.673	Reduced waste rate.	
	EP11	0.857	Reduction in water consumption.	
Financial performance	DF1	0.891	Reduction of operating costs.	
	DF2	0.882	Increased sales.	
Nonfinancial
Performance	NFP1
NFP2a	0.718	Increased competitive advantage.
Improvement in order delivery time.	
	NFP3	0.528	Product and service quality improvement.	
	NFP4	0.720	Customer loyalty.	
	NFP5	0.705	Increased number of innovations in products/services.	
	NFP6	0.820	Increased market share.	
	NFP7	0.729	Increase in export orders.	
	NFP8	0.631	Increased level of customer satisfaction.	
	NFP9	0.771	Increased employee capacity.	
a Items were dropped due to low factorial loading affecting the validity of measures.
b Although relatively lower it was maintained in the final model as it has not reduced the validity and reliability indexes and it is approximately close to the 0.4 threshold.
10990836, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bse.70437 by University Of East Anglia, Wiley Online Library on [25/02/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License