Article review of “Environmental Sustainability in Wineries”

Article review of “Environmental Sustainability in Wineries”

 

How to present this article in Harvard reference format?

Cittadin, A., Silva da Rosa, F. & Monteiro, J., 2026. Environmental Sustainability in Wineries: How Contingency Factors and Environmental Management Accounting Tools Influence Environmental Performance? Business Strategy and the Environment, 35, pp.5802–5822. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.70437

 

What are the key research issues the article wants to address?

The key research issues this article addresses are:

1.    How wineries design sustainability practices and utilize environmental management accounting (EMA) tools.

2.    How contingency factors—specifically environmental uncertainty, environmental strategy, and technology—influence the adoption of sustainability practices and the use of EMA tools in wineries.

3.    How these sustainability practices and the use of EMA tools impact the environmental performance of wineries.

4.    Whether EMA tools have a direct effect on environmental performance, or whether their use is more associated with financial and nonfinancial performance, particularly in the Brazilian winery context.

5.    How contingency theory can help explain the variation in sustainability behavior and EMA adoption in wineries in response to contextual factors such as regulatory pressure, stakeholder demands, and technological advancement.

Overall, the article seeks to understand the relationship between contextual contingency factors, sustainability practices, EMA tool use, and their resulting performance outcomes in the wine sector, addressing existing gaps in knowledge about the contextual design and use of sustainability initiatives in this industry.

Describe two main theories employed in this article.

·        The two main theories employed in this article are:

1.    Contingency Theory Contingency theory is the central theoretical lens used in this study. It posits that the effectiveness of organizational systems and practices depends on the fit or alignment between internal processes and external contextual factors. The article uses contingency theory to explain how winery firms' adoption of sustainability practices and their use of environmental management accounting (EMA) tools vary according to specific contingency factors such as environmental uncertainties, environmental strategy, and technology. Rather than advocating universal best practices, the theory emphasizes that sustainability and EMA adoption should be contingent on context-specific conditions to achieve better environmental and organizational performance. This approach helps explain why wineries adapt their sustainability behavior in response to changing environmental, strategic, and technological contexts.

2. Environmental Management Accounting (EMA) Framework EMA constitutes both a set of management tools and a conceptual approach for integrating environmental information into accounting and decision-making systems. The article treats EMA as a critical mechanism through which wineries monitor, quantify, and manage environmental costs and resource consumption (e.g., water and energy use, emissions). EMA supports evidence-based sustainability decision-making by providing physical and financial metrics tied to environmental performance. The study investigates how EMA tools are adopted and used in wineries and their impact on performance, highlighting EMA's role in achieving resource efficiency, regulatory compliance, and cost savings. EMA is conceptualized as an organizational practice shaped by contingency factors and as a contributor to both environmental and economic outcomes in wineries.

Together, these two theoretical perspectives frame the article's investigation into how contingency factors influence sustainability practices and EMA use, and how these in turn affect environmental and organizational performance in the winery sector. Contingency theory explains the contextual foundations of behavior, while EMA represents the practical tools employed within those contexts to manage environmental impacts.

 

Highlight 2 main primary findings reported in this article.

Two main primary findings reported in this article are:

1.    Contingency factors positively influence the adoption of sustainability practices and the use of EMA tools in wineries. The study found that environmental uncertainties, environmental strategy, and technology significantly and positively influence wineries to adopt sustainability practices and utilize EMA tools. Specifically, environmental uncertainties drive wineries to implement sustainability initiatives to adapt to changing conditions; environmental strategy helps translate environmental goals into actionable practices; and technological advancements facilitate cleaner production and better environmental management. These contingency factors play a crucial role in shaping how wineries engage with sustainability and environmental accounting practices.

2.    Adoption of sustainability practices leads to improved environmental performance, but the use of EMA tools does not directly enhance environmental performance in the winery sector. The results show that sustainability practices positively impact environmental outcomes such as reducing resource consumption and mitigating environmental crises. However, contrary to expectations, the use of EMA tools was not found to have a significant direct effect on environmental performance in Brazilian wineries. Instead, EMA appears to be more strongly associated with financial performance, suggesting that wineries primarily adopt EMA for economic benefits like cost savings and operational efficiency rather than comprehensive environmental improvements. This indicates a possible focus on short-term economic returns over long-term environmental gains when employing EMA.

Describe 3 main claims of the article in terms of Toulmin's model of argument.

Using Toulmin’s model of argument, the article presents the following three main claims with their associated grounds, warrants, backing, qualifiers, and possible rebuttals:

1.    Claim 1: Contingency factors such as environmental uncertainties, environmental strategy, and technology positively influence the adoption of sustainability practices and the use of EMA tools in wineries.

·        Grounds: Empirical data collected from 171 wineries in Brazil showing statistically significant relationships between these contingency factors and both sustainability practices and EMA adoption  .

·        Warrant: Contingency theory posits that organizational effectiveness depends on the fit between internal systems and external conditions, implying that firms adapt their sustainability strategies and tools based on environmental uncertainties, strategic orientation, and available technology .

·        Backing: Prior literature on contingency theory and management accounting supporting the role of environmental uncertainties, strategy, and technology in shaping sustainability-related organizational behaviors (Christ and Burritt 2013b; Latan et al. 2018) .

·        Qualifier: The positive influence is context-dependent, notably significant in the wine sector facing environmental volatility .

·        Rebuttal: Some wineries may not adopt these practices or tools effectively due to financial constraints or low regulatory pressure .

2.    Claim 2: Adoption of sustainability practices positively impacts environmental performance in wineries, whereas the use of EMA tools does not have a direct significant effect on environmental performance.

·        Grounds: Structural equation modeling results demonstrating a strong positive path coefficient between sustainability practices and environmental performance but a non-significant path for EMA tools to environmental performance.

·        Warrant: Practical deployment of sustainability initiatives directly mitigates environmental impacts, while EMA tools may be applied primarily for other purposes, such as financial control .

·        Backing: Literature showing that sustainability practices result in resource efficiency and emissions reduction, but EMA use is often limited by complexity, cost, and short-term financial focus (Hyvönen 2007; Elhossade et al. 2021).

·        Qualifier: This finding may be particularly characteristic of the Brazilian wine sector with limited EMA integration .

·        Rebuttal: In other sectors or regions with more integrated EMA practices, positive environmental performance effects could be observed.

3.    Claim 3: EMA tools have a positive influence on financial and nonfinancial performance in wineries, mediating the effect of contingency factors on these performance outcomes.

·        Grounds: Robustness analysis revealing significant positive mediating effects of EMA on financial and nonfinancial performance, with EMA usage influenced by contingency factors.

·        Warrant: EMA facilitates better internal decision-making and operational efficiency, thus enhancing overall organizational performance beyond purely environmental metrics.

·        Backing: Prior studies linking EMA to improved corporate reputation, cost savings, and stakeholder engagement as drivers of financial and nonfinancial benefits (Zandi and Lee 2019; Appannan et al. 2023).

·        Qualifier: This beneficial mediating role applies when financial and nonfinancial outcomes are the focus rather than direct environmental improvements.

·        Rebuttal: EMA’s impact may be diminished if primarily used for compliance or reactive purposes without strategic environmental integration.

These claims collectively advance the understanding of how contingency factors shape environmental management in wineries, the differential effects of sustainability practices and EMA tools, and the multidimensional outcomes of utilizing EMA.

Describe 2 main research limitations of the study.

The article identifies the following two main research limitations:

1.    Context-specific findings limiting generalizability: The study's results are based on perceptions of Brazilian winery managers. Given Brazil's relatively small international wine market presence, specific local legislation, and a relatively recent tradition of wine consumption, the findings may not generalize to other countries with more established wine cultures or different environmental challenges. The authors suggest caution when extending these results to other contexts and encourage future research in countries with different wine industry dynamics and environmental issues.

2.    Scope for deeper exploration of nuanced and dynamic sustainability contexts: Although the study demonstrates strong relationships between contingency factors, management tools, and performance, it acknowledges that complex and dynamic aspects of sustainability—particularly under conditions of uncertainty and rapid technological change—require further investigation. There is also room for more empirical research on how digital transformation affects environmental management in wineries and on promoting EMA's use beyond transparency and accountability towards enhancing environmental management.