Companies are under growing pressure to disclose what they are doing about sustainability, but publishing more information does not necessarily make suppliers and regulators trust them. New research from Nigeria’s oil and gas sector suggests that the quality of sustainability communication matters because stakeholders first judge whether the message appears authentic, and that judgement can shape trust and willingness to collaborate.
The study, published in the South African Journal of Business Management on 2 October 2026, examined sustainability, procurement and regulatory managers working across Nigeria’s oil and gas supply chain. It tested a sequence in which sustainability signalling quality influences perceived authenticity, authenticity influences supplier trust, and trust influences willingness to collaborate.
The results supported each part of that sequence. Sustainability signalling quality was strongly associated with perceived authenticity, with a standardised path coefficient of 0.67. Perceived authenticity was in turn associated with supplier trust at 0.71, while supplier trust predicted collaborative willingness at 0.64. All three direct relationships were statistically significant at p < 0.001.
Why disclosure quality may matter more than disclosure volume
Sustainability reporting is often treated as a transparency problem: organisations are expected to disclose enough information for investors, regulators, suppliers and other stakeholders to judge their conduct. Yet disclosure can also become symbolic. A detailed report may create the appearance of accountability without convincing its audience that the organisation will follow through on its commitments.
The new study approached this problem through performative governance theory. In this framework, communication is not simply a neutral transfer of information. It can function as part of governance itself because audiences interpret signals, judge their credibility and decide whether those signals justify trust or cooperation.
The researchers defined sustainability signalling quality in terms of communication that is specific, useful for decisions and internally consistent. Perceived authenticity captured whether recipients regarded the communication as sincere and likely to be followed by action. Supplier trust represented confidence in the organisation’s reliability, while collaborative willingness reflected readiness to work together on sustainability initiatives.
A survey of 148 managers across the supply chain
The research used a quantitative, cross-sectional survey design. The target population consisted of managers with direct responsibility for sustainability communication, compliance interpretation or buyer-supplier coordination in Nigeria’s oil and gas sector.
Participants were recruited from three stakeholder groups: buying organisations, suppliers or contractors, and regulators. After screening, 148 valid responses remained. About 27% came from buyers, 54% from suppliers or contractors and 19% from regulators. Data were collected through an online Qualtrics questionnaire between May and July 2024.
The researchers used seven-point response scales and tested five latent constructs: sustainability signalling quality, policy alignment perception, perceived authenticity, supplier trust and collaborative willingness. They evaluated the measurement model before testing the proposed relationships. Indicator loadings met the conventional 0.70 screening criterion, average variance extracted exceeded 0.50 for all constructs, and heterotrait-monotrait ratios remained below 0.85.
The main analysis used partial least squares structural equation modelling in SmartPLS 4 with 5,000 bootstrap resamples. The team also tested measurement invariance before comparing stakeholder groups and used covariance-based structural equation modelling in AMOS as a sensitivity check.
Authenticity formed the bridge between disclosure and trust
The structural model explained 52% of the variance in perceived authenticity, 57% of the variance in supplier trust and 63% of the variance in collaborative willingness. These figures indicate that the proposed chain captured a substantial portion of variation in the three outcomes within this sample.
The indirect results were particularly important. Sustainability signalling quality had a positive indirect association with supplier trust through perceived authenticity, with a standardised indirect effect of 0.47 and a 95% confidence interval from 0.31 to 0.62. The longer sequence from signalling quality to authenticity, then trust and finally collaborative willingness was also statistically significant, with an indirect effect of 0.29 and a 95% confidence interval from 0.17 to 0.44.
This means the findings are not well described as simply showing that more sustainability communication creates more cooperation. The model instead suggests that stakeholders evaluate the quality of the signal, form an authenticity judgement, and only then translate that judgement into relational trust and willingness to collaborate.
Policy alignment changed how signals were interpreted
The study also examined whether perceived alignment with policy strengthened the relationship between signalling quality and authenticity. The interaction was positive and statistically significant, with a coefficient of 0.18, t = 2.06 and p = 0.041.
When the researchers compared stakeholder groups, this moderation effect was strongest among regulators, where the coefficient reached 0.24 and was statistically significant. Among suppliers and contractors it was smaller at 0.12 and was not statistically significant at the conventional 10% threshold. The central relationships linking signalling quality, authenticity, trust and collaboration nevertheless remained directionally stable across stakeholder roles.
The pattern suggests that the institutional context in which a sustainability claim is made can influence whether audiences consider it credible. For regulators in particular, communication that appears aligned with recognised policy priorities may provide an additional cue that an organisation’s sustainability commitments are substantive rather than cosmetic.
A second statistical approach produced similar conclusions
As a sensitivity test, the researchers re-estimated the model using covariance-based structural equation modelling. The resulting model showed acceptable global fit, with a chi-square to degrees-of-freedom ratio of 2.34, comparative fit index of 0.94, Tucker-Lewis index of 0.93, root mean square error of approximation of 0.06 and standardised root mean square residual of 0.05. The structural coefficients remained directionally consistent with the primary analysis.
This does not eliminate the limitations of the study, but it gives additional reassurance that the main pattern was not merely an artefact of one modelling approach.
What the findings mean for companies and policymakers
For companies, the practical message is that sustainability disclosure should be designed for credibility rather than volume. Specific, decision-useful and internally consistent information may be more valuable than broad claims that are difficult for suppliers or regulators to connect with observable conduct.
The findings also highlight the importance of follow-through. A communication strategy can describe ambitious environmental or social commitments, but the proposed mechanism depends on audiences interpreting those commitments as authentic. If stated priorities conflict with operational behaviour, additional disclosure could fail to produce the trust needed for cooperation.
For policymakers, clearer policy expectations and stronger verification cues may help stakeholders distinguish meaningful sustainability performance from impression management. The finding that policy alignment mattered most strongly among regulators also suggests that different audiences may use different standards when deciding whether a corporate sustainability signal is credible.
Important limitations
The study cannot establish that better sustainability signalling causes greater trust or collaboration. Its cross-sectional design measured the variables at one broad point in time, so the direction of influence cannot be demonstrated as it could in a longitudinal or experimental design.
The measures were also based on respondents’ perceptions. Common-method and social-desirability biases therefore remain possible even though the researchers used procedural safeguards and statistical diagnostics. The sample of 148 managers is useful for testing the proposed mechanism but is relatively small, and all participants came from one sector in one country.
Most importantly, the research did not independently audit the organisations’ actual sustainability performance. It therefore shows how perceived communication quality, authenticity and policy alignment relate to trust and collaboration, not whether organisations making credible-looking claims objectively performed better on environmental or social outcomes.
Future studies could strengthen the evidence by following organisations and their partners over time, combining surveys with independent disclosure audits, assurance records, contracting data and observed collaboration outcomes. Comparative research across industries and countries could also test whether policy alignment matters as strongly in more stable or differently regulated environments.
Source Information
Study: “When transparency fails: Performative governance in emerging-market oil and gas supply chains”
Author: Augustine Okeke
Journal: South African Journal of Business Management, Volume 57, Issue 1
Published: 2 October 2026
DOI: 10.4102/sajbm.v57i1.5857
