INSTITUTIONAL PRESSURES AND CIRCULAR ECONOMY PRACTICES

This dataset contains survey response data from 308 manufacturing firms across seven active industrial parks in Ethiopia. The data were collected to examine how coercive, normative, and mimetic institutional pressures drive the adoption of circular economy (CE) practices and how these practices subsequently impact triple bottom line (TBL) performance (economic, social, and environmental outcomes). The dataset is structured as a CSV file and is optimized for multivariate statistical analysis, specifically covariance-based structural equation modelling (CB-SEM). It contains anonymised firm-level responses measured on multi-item psychometric scales. Hypothesis 1 (Direct Pressures): Coercive, normative, and mimetic institutional pressures positively and significantly drive the adoption of Circular Economy (CE) practices.Hypothesis 2 (Direct Practices): The adoption of CE practices positively and significantly improves Triple Bottom Line (TBL) performance (Economic, Social, and Environmental).Hypothesis 3 (Mediation): CE practices mediate the relationship between institutional pressures and TBL performance outcomes. The dataset was built to test a mediated structural model grounded in Institutional Theory. The core hypothesis is that external pressures do not automatically improve performance; they must first drive a change in internal operational habits (Circular Economy practices). The data analysis reveals that external institutional forces do not automatically translate into better performance; instead, they serve as triggers that must be internalized into concrete company actions. When examining direct relationships, all three forms of institutional pressures—coercive, normative, and mimetic—exhibit a positive and significant impact on the adoption of circular economy practices. Similarly, the implementation of these green practices leads to a positive and significant boost across all three dimensions of the triple bottom line, proving that sustainable operations actively drive economic, social, and environmental success.The mediation analysis uncovers exactly how these pressures transform into actual performance dividends, showing varying pathways for different forces. Mimetic pressure, which stems from mimicking successful competitors, relies entirely on a full mediation path. This means that simply feeling the pressure to copy market rivals yields zero performance benefits unless a firm actually restructures its operational routines to adopt circular practices. Similarly, normative pressure—driven by industry standards and professional expectations—is fully mediated when it comes to economic and environmental outcomes. Industry expectations alone will not cut costs or reduce waste until they are translated into physical recycling, resource recovery, or waste minimisation efforts.In contrast, regulatory and social forces act on a more immediate level, showing different layers of impact.