Similarly, Viet Nam Dairy Products Joint Stock Company (VNM) highlighted that:

"*Achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) related to poverty, climate change, and food and nutritional security is a major challenge, given the significant impacts of climate change on all aspects of life. From now to 2030, there are only 12 years left to speed up. This requires urgent actions by countries along with cooperative partnerships between governments and stakeholders at all levels.*" [8]

These quotes indicated that Vietnam companies had attempted to adopt and follow the 17 UN SDGs. However, it is not easy to incorporate the business model with SDGs, especially for companies in developing countries [9]. Besides, Pizzi et al. [10] and Silva [11] pinpointed that companies have struggled to reconcile their financial performance with Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) practices, including SDG disclosures. That is why although SDGs are in their infant stages of implementation, there is an increasing number of studies examining different perspectives of SDGs toward sustainable corporate development to interpret the role of SDGs in sustainability reporting [12].Nevertheless, several studies indicated that the relationship between SDGs and corporate reporting has barely been examined [13–15].

Regarding research methodologies, it is undeniable that content analysis is the most appropriate method to examine the extent and quality of corporate reporting [11,16–18]. However, in terms of theoretical framework, prior literature has applied a single theory to explain corporate engagement toward SDGs, such as legitimacy theory [19]; stakeholder theory [20,21]. Within one single theory, more is needed to discover the level of corporate engagement in SDGs and corporate reporting of sustainability-related information. This is because the 17 UN SDGs are considered a collection of 17 interlinked global goals striving for the prosperity of the CSR pillars (social, environmental, and governance), not focusing on a particular topic in corporate sustainability performance. Moreover, referring to the corporate reporting of SDGs, it is inexplicable to ignore "corporate motivation" in committing to voluntary disclosure. It is also important to investigate whether this engagement and adoption of SDGs are symbolic (i.e., *green talk*) or substantive (i.e., *green action*) [16,17]? So, there is a need to develop a multi-theoretical framework to explore the SDG disclosure levels in corporate sustainability reports [13,15,18]—especially in developing countries such as Vietnam.

Therefore, in line with several recently published research, such as Silva [11]; Van der Waal & Thijssens [16]; Emma & Jennifer [17]; Heras-Saizarbitoria et al. [18], and Ike et al. [13], the authors developed a multi-theoretical motivated framework for SDGs adoption, including legitimacy theory (legitimating motivation), stakeholder theory (motivation of meeting stakeholders' expectations) and voluntary disclosure theory (volunteering motivation) to bridge the literature gap by answering the following main research questions: (1) What is the current state of SDG disclosures among Vietnamese firms? (2) How do Vietnamese listed firms disseminate SDGs in their reports? (3) How do Vietnamese listed companies adopt a symbolic/substantive strategy in disclosing SDGs information? (4) Which SDGs are addressed mainly by listed Vietnamese firms, and which industries focus more on achieving these SDGs?

To answer these research questions, this paper employs the content analysis method to 893 corporate reports of the top100 firms listed on the two main Vietnamese Stock Exchanges, including the Ho Chi Minh Stock Exchange (HOSE) and the Hanoi Stock Exchange (HNX). Particularly, the sample consists of 692 annual reports in Vietnamese, 177 annual reports, and 24 standalone sustainability reports from 2015 to 2021. Based on the market capitalization, we selected 50 firms from HOSE and 50 from HNX with the highest market capitalization as they are most likely to disclose sustainability-related information, including SDGs. Based on Helfaya & Whittington [22], the search sample contains thirteen industries categorized into three industrial dimensions: high environmental sensitive industries (HESI), medium environmental sensitive industries (MESI), and low environmental sensitive industries (LESI), as seen in Table 4. For consistency, all reports of the Top 100 listed firms were downloaded from a reliable website (Vietstock) and corporate websites.

Our findings indicate that 84% of total firms are partly engaging with the 17 SDGs (only focusing on some specific goals), particularly SDG1—Poverty, SDG8—Economic growth, and SDG13—Climate change. This suggests that there is a lack of "actual implementation" or substantive performance to achieve the global goals among Vietnamese listed firms. Additionally, firms operating in HESI intend to have *green talks* in their reporting statements rather than *green actions* to achieve these SDGs. Interestingly, supported by our multi-theoretical framework of legitimacy, stakeholders, and voluntary disclosure theories, we found that many companies in HESI tend to avoid disclosing SDG-related information to protect their legitimacy and avoid legal commitment and public discontent.

Consequently, within our unique multi-theoretical framework, our study can fully cover various aspects of SDGs and the "motivation" to achieve them. Accordingly, this research can be considered pioneering research on the adoption and implementation of the UN SDGs in the Vietnamese context with two highlights. Firstly, relying on our research findings, it is undoubtedly that SDGs have gained a great attention among Vietnamese listed firms. However, it is still challenging due to a need for consistent reporting mechanisms and substantive strategies related to their implementation plans as part of their business operating objectives. For that reason, our findings are crucial and can be used as a guideline for corporate decision-makers of Vietnamese listed firms to satisfy their stakeholders' expectations. Secondly, our results are essential for the Vietnamese government, regulators, and policymakers to track the progress of Vietnamese listed firms toward SDG adoption and implementation, enabling them to better support companies in adopting and achieving these goals and fulfilling the UN Agenda of 2030 at the country level.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 discusses the literature review. Section 3 describes research methodologies, including research sample, data collection, and research method. Section 4 discusses the research results, and Section 5 concludes the study.


**Table 1.** The Measurement of 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).


#### **Table 1.** *Cont.*

**Table 2.** The 17 UN SDGs and VN SDGs.



#### **Table 2.** *Cont.*

### **2. Literature Review**

#### *2.1. 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)*

Before the SDGs officially came into force, the aim started as an idea of sustainable goals by the Norwegian Prime Minister to define the sustainable development as: "meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" [23]. After several conferences/roundtable meetings of the 30-member UN General Assembly Open Working Group on SDGs (such as Rio+20; the 68th session of the General Assembly), the Post-2015 Development Agenda was finally processed since the Open Working Group (OWG) submitted their proposal with 8 SDGs and 169 targets, called "The Eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)" [24]. Officially, the SDGs were set up in 2015 by the United Nations General Assembly.

All countries, regardless of their wealth, are called to promote prosperity while protecting the planet, tackling climate change, and addressing social challenges [25]. These SDGs are critically linked and underpin each other. For example, SDG1—No poverty and SDG2—Zero hunger, meaning that if any country can achieve either SDG1 or SDG2, their citizens must have the capability to strive for better well-being (SDG3) or quality education (SDG4). According to the United Nations, at the macro-level (i.e., country level), countries should take the primary responsibility to follow up and review the progress made in implementing SDGs [26]. At the micro-level (i.e., firm-level), firms are expected to apply their innovations, creativity, and financial resources to achieve the SDGs, which would effectively address the three sustainability dimensions: economic, environmental, and social [2].

The implementation of 17 UN SDGs by countries is now firmly in place. According to Sustainable Development Report 2022 within 163 countries by Sachs [27], the world progressed on the SDG Index at an average rate of 0.5 points a year from 2015 to 2019, which is considered too slow to achieve the SDGs by 2030. Simultaneously, the progress of SDGs implementation varied significantly across countries and goals. Sachs [27] found that poorer countries with lower SDG Index scores progressed faster than more affluent countries. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, global energy, and financial crises, SDG Index scores have declined slightly since early 2020.

Accordingly, SDG1—No poverty and SDG2—Zero hunger were highly affected. For example, over 140 million people could fall into extreme poverty (measured against the \$1.90 poverty line) in 2020 [28]. Additionally, countries heavily depend on the international trade system, and tourism would face a challenge to achieving SDG8—Decent work and economic growth. For instance, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Thailand, and New Zealand have been seriously affected by the COVID-19 pandemic—notably, a declining figure of around 110 arrivals for every additional person infected by the coronavirus [29]. In contrast to the pandemic's negative effect, Finland, Denmark, and Sweden, are the top 3 countries that effectively adopted and achieved the SDGs as stated in the SDG Index and Dashboards, respectively [27].

#### *2.2. Adoption and Achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by Vietnam*

The Vietnamese Prime Minister's office approved the National Actional Plan to implement the Global Agenda 2030 for sustainable development (SD). The Plan was categorised into six intervention dimensions [30], including:


Table 2 proves that the Vietnamese National Action Plan (NAP) has been implemented in the correct direction. Regarding the global level, according to the Sustainable Development Report 2015, Vietnam has not been engaged in SDGs, except for some Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, such as Finland, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. By 2016, Vietnam started to commit to the 17 UN SDGs; however, the ranking was much below the average, at the 88th. Since 2017, the ranking of Vietnam on the index has considerably improved, thanks to the implementation of NAP. For example, Vietnam was one of 163 countries assessed in the 2022 SDG Index. Vietnam was ranked in 55th place with an overall index score of 72.8 [27], the same score as in 2022 (as presented in Table 3). Yet, its ranking was the 51st, which suggests that the average score among all nations has increased. Since 2015, East and South Asia have progressed more on the SDGs than any other region adopting sustainable goals. Among Southeast Asia, Vietnam has been ranked the 2nd country with the highest score on the SDG Index, just below Thailand for both years 2021 and 2022.


**Table 3.** Vietnam's Score on the SDG Index and Dashboard.

Besides Vietnam's National Action Plan on Sustainable Consumption and Production (2021–2030), the Vietnamese Government has implemented several activities, such as various conferences, to ensure the country is on the right track for SDGs implementation. For example, the Conference "National Assembly of Vietnam and the Sustainable Development Goals" was organized by the National Assembly of Vietnam, the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), and the United Nations in Vietnam in December 2018. The conference covered different SDG topics (e.g., gender equality, decent work and economic growth, peace, and justice) [31].

Although the Vietnamese Government has actively promoted the SDGs by developing a legal framework [32], there are limited tools to assess the adoption of SDGs at the microlevel, such as the corporate level. It is challenging to examine the process of adopting the SDGs for a particular firm operating across the sectors, even for listed firms on the stock exchange.

#### *2.3. Theoretical Background and Research Questions*

The critics of the first definition of SD by Brundtland's Commission have opened a road for hundreds of alternative definitions from scholars and practitioners [33]. For example, one of the popular definitions of SD is defined by the National Strategy of Sustainable Development (2003): "Sustainable development is the society's development that creates the possibility for achieving overall wellbeing for the present and the future generations through combining environmental, economic, and social aims of the society without exceeding the allowable limits of the effect on the environment" [34]. Within the widespread SD phenomenon, SDGs is defined as "a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future" [35]. Due to limited resources available on Earth (e.g., water) [36], the SDG framework guides human beings to strive for SD in the long run [37].

Regarding firm-level of SDG adoption, SDGs enable firms to select and prioritize corporate sustainability issues and align strategies toward specific and relevant CSR pillars [38]. Since its launch in 2015, many firms around the world have started to disclose the

SDGs or SDGs-related information in their annual report (AR), standalone sustainability report (SR), or integrated report (IR) to declare their committed effort to SD [39–41]. At the same time, literature on sustainability reporting started shifting towards corporate engagement in the SDGs. There are several topics have been examined, such as the potential role of corporate activities in supporting the SDGs [42,43], the factors that affect companies' engagement in sustainable practices [18,44,45], and the firms' motivation or opportunities toward achieving the SDGs [46]. However, the studies by Ike et al. [13]; Diaz-Sarachaga [15], and Bennich et al. [14] indicate that the correlation between the SDGs and corporate sustainability reporting has barely been investigated.

Among limited empirical studies on the exploration of SDG disclosure levels in corporate sustainability reporting, Yu et al. [47] assessed the adoption and implementation of corporate SDG disclosure by analyzing the content in the corporate reporting of 100 Chinese companies listed on the Shanghai Stock Exchange from 2016 to 2018. They found that Chinese companies primarily focused on specific SDGs (such as SDG9—Industry, innovation, and infrastructure development; SDG8—Decent work and economic growth and SDG16—Peace and justice strong institution). Noticeably, their findings reveal that most companies focused solely on presenting SDG disclosure information rather than genuinely performing sustainable actions to achieve these goals. In the same vein, Manes-Rossi & Nicolo' [48] conducted a content analysis of the non-financial reports to analyze how SDGs reporting is evolving and what are the most addressed SDGs in the context of the European energy sector companies. They pointed out that the disclosure of SDGs is an indispensable part of corporate reporting, yet more symbolic than substantial changes appear. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct an in-depth analysis to assess the corporate SDG disclosures and how the SDGs information is disclosed in the sustainability-related report.

SDGs have been critically emphasized from the introduction until now. However, scholars have highlighted that not all SDGs are mentioned in corporate reporting [48], suggesting that there is a particular focus on those SDGs [47]. Several potential reasons behind this concentration of SDG disclosure by firms have been figured out. For example, Heras-Saizarbitoria et al. and Diaz-Sarachaga [15,18] found that focusing on specific SDGs makes it easier to incorporate SDGs into corporate practices (e.g., Goal 8—Decent work and economic growth, Goals 12—Responsible consumption and production, and 13—Climate action). In contrast, because of the focus of certain SDGs by firms, some goals with more macroeconomic impacts (e.g., Goal 1—No poverty, Goals 2—Zero hunger, and 17—Partnership) are less mentioned [39,49]. Simultaneously, Van der Waal & Thijssens [16] found that some companies are not motivated to engage in SDGs, which are weakly linked to their core business activities.

As for emerging markets with weak overall legal systems and strong shareholder protection [50], a question arises by Van der Waal & Thijssens [16]: Why should listed firms voluntarily engage with SDGs while being principally shareholder value-oriented? Let us take an example, Sekarlangit & Wardhani [51] analyzed the impact of the board of directors' characteristics and the existence of CSR committees on SDG disclosures in corporate reporting for five Southeast Asian countries—Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, and Philippines. They found that CSR committees can encourage more intensive SDG disclosures. Simultaneously, the finding reveals that the higher commitment to the sustainability agenda, the higher level of SDG disclosures [38]. Interestingly, Scheyvens et al. [2] argued that the SDGs are the nation-states' agreements rather than individuals' or businesses' actions. Besides, CSR is tightly linked to success when implementing global goals by world countries [52]. Similarly, Van der Waal & Thijssens [16] mapped the undiscovered terrain of corporate SDG involvement from the sustainability reports of the largest 2000 stock-listed businesses worldwide. They found that corporate SDG involvement is still limited (23% of the total sample of 2000 firms), and listed companies voluntarily engage in SDGs if it creates value for the common good. Additionally, Khaled et al. [53] developed a critical framework by hand-mapping the SDGs and their targets with a firm's sustainability practices. They found that the SDGs relate to their ESG performance

and tangibly measure their progress towards achieving the SDGs. Consequently, we claim that SDG disclosures strongly relate to firms' industry sectors and the awareness of SD and CSR practices.

At the industry level, according to Van der Waal & Thijssens; Heras-Saizarbitoria et al.; Diaz-Sarachaga and Manes-Rossi & Nicolo' [15,16,18,48], there is a lack of studies to explore how the SDGs are prioritized across different industries. Al-Tuwaijri et al. and Young et al. [54,55] claimed that the quality of sustainability reporting is dependable on the industry risk characteristics. They found that sustainability reporting is more robust in high-risk compared to low-risk industries. Indeed, firms operating in environmentally sensitive sectors (e.g., energy, tourism, or chemicals) intend to have high awareness and interest in the commitment and achievement of SDGs [39,44,49]. In contrast, Nechita et al. [44] evaluated the disclosure of SDG information in corporate reports using both qualitative and quantitative approaches. They found that 63% of the analyzed reports did not mention the SDGs. Surprisingly, the presentation of the SDG information in their selected sample was not similar even in the same industry.

Critically implementing SDGs into business models is necessary [11,56]. Emma et al. [17] argued that despite the high engagement of European companies in symbolic disclosures, SDGs reporting still plays a substantive role among companies operating in controversial and environmentally sensitive industries. They claimed that firms had employed SDGs as "*a symbolic legitimacy approach*" to address or enhance legitimacy issues and respond to the expectation of stakeholders. This finding is consistent with the studies of Heras-Saizarbitoria et al. [18] and Silva [11]. They vehemently claimed that firms would instead show their compliance with stakeholders' pressures to gain legitimacy than implement actual corporate actions to commit to SDGs.

Nevertheless, empirical studies revealed that most firms follow a symbolic approach toward SDG disclosures rather than providing substantive SDG reporting [16]. For instance, Izzo et al. [49] rationalized that the requirements of the SDGs and specific KPIs or achievement of SDGs are still missing in corporate reporting. As a result, we believe that businesses should use SDG disclosure as "*a strategic tool*" to achieve business ethics and sustainable responsibility, instead of using it as a symbolic strategy to "deal" with stakeholders' pressure of non-financial disclosure, such as SDGs.

Therefore, the need to explore SDG disclosure levels in corporate sustainability reporting [13,15,18] and the current debate on the dichotomy of symbolic/substantive approach to SDG disclosures [16,17] calls for more in-depth empirical evidence in different industries. Simultaneously, the literature review evidenced that while there is an increasing appetite for demonstrating a corporate commitment to SDGs, limited research indicates how companies effectively integrate SDGs in their reporting practices in developing countries. As a result, following the calls for filling this research gap, this research developed a multitheoretical framework, including a legitimacy perspective–legitimacy theory; a stakeholder expectation–stakeholder theory, and a voluntary approach–voluntary disclosure theory of digging deep into ARs/SRs published by Top 100 Vietnamese Listed Firms in both HOSE) and HNX through a longitudinal and cross-sectorial approach. In doing so, our research paper intends to answer the following research questions:


Since most previous empirical studies on SDG-related topics draw on legitimacy theory [11,19,57–59], Calabrese et al. [38] indicated that there is a need for frameworks to fully understand how companies are engaging in achieving the SDGs. Thus, to answer the above research questions and provide a practical framework that assists companies in incorporating SDGs information into their non-financial reporting.

Firstly, in corporate social reporting, Guthrie et al. [60] pointed out that legitimacy theory posits that CSR disclosures are reactions to environmental factors to legitimize corporate actions. Additionally, O'Donovan [58] claimed that legitimacy theory posits that the survival and success of corporations correspond with society's expectations, suggesting that firms are required to act and perform in "socially acceptable behaviors" manner. Deegan [61] undertook a study examining the social and environmental disclosures of BHP Ltd. to ascertain the corporate social and environmental disclosures and pinpointed that legitimacy theory refers to a "social contract" between the corporate and the society in which they operate or "community license to operate". According to legitimacy theory, the corporate SDG disclosure is presented in the corporate reporting to show companies' efforts in achieving SDGs and conforming to the community's desire for non-financial information or managing the firms' legitimacy [11,57,62]. Additionally, legitimacy theory indicates that poorly sustainability-performing firms use sustainability disclosure as a legitimation tool to lead the community perceptions [63]. Therefore, under legitimacy theory, we assume that corporate SDG disclosure has been used as "a strategic tactic" to strengthen the firm legitimacy or even to alter society's expectation because of the managers' perceptions, which strongly influences the business model of a specific firm.

Regarding stakeholders' perspectives, stakeholder engagement is essential for implementing CSR strategies and achieving SDGs [45,64,65]. Stakeholder theory can be used to explain how corporations engage in SDG disclosures. Mainly, this theory posits that "managing for stakeholders" involves paying attention to the interests and well-being of primary stakeholders (including employees and managers, shareholders, financiers, customers, and suppliers) [66]. Therefore, instead of using symbolic strategies to disclose SDGs in sustainability reports, several firms have chosen to link SDGs to their stakeholders' expectations and then communicate their CSR strategy to the public. For example, Lopez [67] analyzed Spanish MNCs' (CSR) strategy and how they incorporate the SDGs into their reporting systems. The results revealed that firms communicated their operating performance in economic, social, and environmental aspects by linking SDGs' targets to various primary stakeholders of the corporation.

Although sustainability reporting is commonly used to describe the self-reporting of CSR-related activities [68], it is still optional in most countries [69]. Therefore, voluntary disclosure theory also offers another theoretical explanation for corporate SDG disclosures [70]. Initially, this theory was derived from game theory, meaning that a corporation's motivation in making or withholding disclosures depends upon shareholders' value [71]. In response to voluntary disclosure theory, Nishitani et al. [68] found a positive relationship between sustainability performance and its reporting. They claimed that companies are motivated to use sustainability-related reporting to aid improved decision-making by their shareholders. Furthermore, to address the stakeholders' expectations, companies voluntarily engage in and account for sustainability-related issues in their reporting systems [72–74].

Therefore, we claim that firms intend to mention SDG disclosures in their reporting in a voluntary basis; they use it as "a communication tool" to satisfy primary stakeholders' transparent demand for non-financial information to increase legitimacy or even manage the stakeholders' perception (regardless of the impact of industrial sectors). Figure 1 shows the research framework developed from a multi-theoretical foundation of legitimacy theory, stakeholder theory, and voluntary disclosure theory.

**Figure 1.** Research Theoretical Framework.

#### **3. Research Methodology**

#### *3.1. Research Sample and Data Collection*

Our initial sample consists of the top 100 firms listed on the two biggest Vietnamese Stock Exchanges, Ho Chi Minh Stock Exchange (HOSE) and Hanoi Stock Exchange (HNX) from 2015 to 2021. Based on the market capitalization, we selected the top 50 firms from both HOSE and HNX. Vietnam is an emerging market, and therefore SDG disclosures or sustainability reporting is still optional. From the legitimacy perspective, big companies are more likely to incorporate the SDGs into their reporting systems than small ones [19] to gain a positive public image and reputation [22,57,75,76]. Therefore, we chose these firms with a strong belief that they have integrated the SDGs information into their corporate reporting. Simultaneously, within the big 100 firms, they can firmly represent the Vietnamese economic trend in disclosing SDGs-related information.

In sum, our sample includes 13 industrial sectors including accommodation and food services; agriculture production; construction and real estate; finance and insurance; food & beverage; health care; information and technology; manufacturing; mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction; natural gas distribution; transportation and warehousing; utilities; and wholesale trade in which the construction and real estate sector account represents 32% of total firms. All reports of the 100 selected firms were downloaded from corporate websites and Vietstock (for further details of the website, please access via this link: https://en.vietstock.vn/ (accessed on 27 August 2022)). 96 Vietnamese firms have integrated sustainability reports (SRs) in their annual reports (ARs) as a separate section to disclose CSR or sustainability matters. Only four firms published their standalone SRs between 2015 and 2021, namely BVH, SSI, VCS, and VNM.

In line with our research objectives and prior literature review [13,15–18], this research analyzed the sample of 893 firm-year observations of Vietnamese ARs and SRs of the big 100 listed firms in HOSE and HNX for the period 2015–2021. Additionally, we relied on previous CSR disclosure literature to understand how different industries focus most on achieving these SDGs [22,70,77]. Notably, we categorized 13 industries into 3 groups based on their levels of environmental sensitivity: 8 high environmental sensitivity industries (HESI: accommodation and food services; agriculture production; construction and real estate; food & beverage; manufacturing; mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction; natural gas distribution and utilities) with 67 companies; 4 medium environmental sensitivity industries (MESI: health care; information and technology; transportation and warehousing and wholesale trade) with 8 companies, and 1 low environmental sensitivity industry (LESI: finance and insurance) with 25 companies, as seen in Table 4.


**Table 4.** Sample Selection and Industry Composition.


*3.2. Research Method: Content Analysis*

Krippendorff [78] discovered the method of "content analysis", which is a "research technique for making replicable and valid inferences from data according to their context" [22,79]. This method has become "the most common method of analyzing the textual fabric of contemporary society" [78]. This method enables researchers to place and codify the text of narrative writing into different items/subjects based on selected criteria [22,57,79]. For SDG-related topics, many researchers have applied content analysis to AR and SR [18,38,41,48,62], as this method is considered an excellent instrument to measure relative levels and trends in reporting [60,80]. Therefore, relying on content analysis, this research examined 893 reports, including information of corporate SDG disclosures for the

period between 2015 and 2021, to address the proposed research questions. Each firm was considered a unit of analysis.

Following Schreier [81], we organized our data collection based on a systematic multiprocess of three stages, including:


At first, we extracted the selected reports using available tools. Many searches were made using different keywords related to the term "Sustainable Development Goals" (such as "Sustainable Development Goals", "SDGs", "Goals", "CSR", "Sustainability", "Aim", "Objective", etc.). All reports have been downloaded from both Vietstock and corporate websites. At this stage, we made an overview of the reports by identifying the main sections containing the information on the SDGs and generating the first insight into how companies present their adoption and achievement of the SDGs. The recording units of analysis cover specific linguistic information such as words, sentences, and lines, and consider both narrative and non-narrative disclosure (such as graphs, tables, figures, and pictures) [82]. At the same time, the illustrative quotation was selected for the English version of 177 ARs by choosing the statement, discussion, or images of corporate SDGs information, the corporate SDGs implementation processes, the corporate CSR-related activities (e.g., prevent climate change, save energy, protect the environment, do charitable works, protect human and labor rights, etc.).

Next, we developed the coding framework to capture the corporate disclosure of SDGs. The disclosure checklist including 17 UN SDGs was developed by Silva [11] and used to quantify the current state of SDG disclosures among Vietnamese-selected firms. Specifically, we reviewed every report to check how many times each of these 17 UN SDGs was disclosed/reported by the selected firms. Simultaneously, we generated a checklist of SDGs' engagement by the 13 industrial sectors to highlight the SDGs concentration toward sectors. After that, we appraised the most recent reports of the sample by using three main criteria to assess how Vietnamese listed firms incorporate SDGs in their reports and examine whether these firms adopt a *symbolic or substantive* strategy in disclosing SDG information, such as (1) Any mention of SDGs in CEO and/or Chair's message; (2) Any indication of potential risks and opportunities related to the SDGs; and (3) Any association of specific key performance indicators (KPI) to priority SDGs.

For the last stage, as in other works carrying out this type of analysis [18,41], the information obtained from the reports was then analyzed and interpreted.

#### **4. Results and Discussion**

#### *4.1. Assessment of Vietnamese SDGs Adopters: Current Status of SDG Disclosures*

Firstly, Table 5 records the descriptive statistical results of the adoption of the 17 UN SDGs of the selected sample. It suggests a notable difference in implementing SDGs among Vietnamese firms. For example, SDG1—Poverty and SDG8—Economy have been received great attention from Vietnamese firms (with a mean of 0.69 and 1.12, respectively). Therefore, it can be argued that firms operating in developing countries intend to incorporate the goal of solving poverty and contributing to economic growth rather than making a significant effort to focus on various aspects of SDGs, like climate change. Since the transition to a low-carbon economy is already underway [83]; thus, our finding outlines that there is a need for companies in the developing world to act seriously on fighting climate change.



Table 6 reports the results of our mapping between selected firms and their engagement with the 17 UN SDGs and the descriptive statistics of disclosing SDGs from 2015 to 2021. Additionally, Table 6 presents the ranking of 100 firms according to the number of disclosing the 17 UN SDGs in their reports. For example, the 17 UN SDGs-related information mentioned in corporate reporting ranges from 0 (e.g., QCG; CTX; NDN; S99; POM; TKU; KLF and PVI) to 22 times (e.g., VIC), meaning that firms are inconsistent in following the SDG Disclosures. In other words, some firms have shown a "real" effort more than others, and even though some firms lack efforts in adopting the SDGs. Therefore, this highlights that firms have different perspectives to adopt SDGs.

**Table 6.** Descriptive Statistics by Firms.


**Table 6.** *Cont.*



**Table 6.** *Cont.*

Our mapping (as seen in Table 6) shows that firms do not follow all 17 UN SDGs. Only 8% of the selected firms reported sustainability information about these 17 SDGs for seven years (2015–2021), which suggests that some goals should be focused on by the States rather than corporations [53]. Firms also need to adopt "macro" goals, such as SDG10—Reduce inequality and SDG11—Sustainable cities and communities, since it is emphasized that "Organizations must acknowledge their impact on the achievement of sustainable development both outside and within the organization's boundary" [84].

Likewise, it is indicated that there are three main patterns of Vietnamese firms' SDGs adoptions (as presented in Table 6), including "*unfollow, partly follow, and fully follow*." In more detail, for cases of ignoring the terms "Sustainable Development Goals" in their corporate reporting, we point out that there are two primary reasons. The first reason is because of the reporting format. Although no SDGs information is mentioned for some firms, they still disclose SDG-related information on their corporate websites. The second reason is that their business models are not focused on the SDGs, which is in line with previous studies [44,47]. Indeed, even in the same industries, the reporting of the SDGs information of the selected sample was different.

Our findings show that 84% of total firms are just partly engaging in the 17 SDGs (i.e., focusing only on some specific goals) across various sectors (e.g., poverty, economic growth, and climate change). This suggests a lack of "actual implementation" of SDGs among Vietnamese firms. Regarding the CSR session in the AR, there is a question: Do these firms "pretend" to satisfy the stakeholders' expectations of social and environmental information or honestly act to progress their commitment toward the SDGs? This can be proved by matching these specific and focused goals by Vietnamese companies with the 3 pillars of CSR practices, such as SDG1—Poverty/Social; SDG8—Decent working environment and economic growth/Governance; SDG13—Climate change/Environment) [53,85].

A review of both ARs and SRs indicated that companies intend to primarily focus on improving poverty, economic growth, and climate change, as illustrated in the following quotations:

"*Applications of the circular economy will help reduce the cost of business operation, increase competitiveness and lead to global development opportunities worth up to USD 4.5 trillion by 2030.*" [8]

"*Continuing the annual charity program of giving Tet gifts to the poor conducted from 2009, BIDV gave away 30,000 sets of Tet gifts, with the value of VND15 billion, together with local authorities to take care of the poor, helped the poor to have a warm Tet whenever spring comes.*" [86]

"*On August 5, 2021, KIDO Group donated 1532 bottles of cooking oil equivalent to VND 582,000,000 for the program "Emergency support for disadvantaged people in Ho Chi Minh City.*" [87]

"*In an effort to help people overcome the damages, at the end of October, PDR's mission visited and donated gifts to people in the most affected communes of Quang Ninh and Le Thuy districts. The total value of donations by Phat Dat was VND 500 million.*" [88]

"*Continue to promote strengths, take more domestic market share which is aiming to the objective of 70–80% drilling market share in Vietnam; expand market share of drilling service and drilling related services in regional and global markets, create added value for clients by high quality services and competitive prices.*" [89]

" ... *Gemadept has taken concrete steps both in decisions and actions to work towards the goal of responding to climate change, joining hands with the Vietnam Government in sustainable development, reflected in green and environmentally friendly port projects, shifting to renewable energy, reforestation projects.*" [90]

Notably, 8% of the sampled firms were fully committed to SDGs (namely, STB, VNM, VCS, PDR, NTP, BVH, TNG, and PVD), and aware of the importance of sustainable development. Thus, our theoretical framework can explain these patterns of SDGs implementation among industries in an emerging market like Vietnam, particularly:

