Sustainability disclosure increasingly serves as a governance device in supply chains because external audiences use disclosures to infer managerial intent, operational capability, and exposure to sanctions amid information asymmetry (Montecchi et al., 2019; Searcy et al., 2022). Climate-reporting regimes have further intensified these demands by shifting materiality assessments towards value-chain exposures, thereby elevating expectations for supplier-facing data, including Scope 3 emissions and control information (IFRS Foundation, 2023; Song et al., 2024). In extractive supply chains, however, disclosure-based governance is frequently assessed not only for informational content but also for its performative credibility, particularly where scrutiny outpaces institutional capacity and enforcement reliability (Ding, 2020; Suddaby et al., 2017). Nigeria offers a theoretically informative setting because the Petroleum Industry Act 2021 reconfigures sector oversight and host-community provisions while implementation frictions and compliance disputes sustain contested expectations about what disclosure can accomplish in practice (Borha & Olujobi, 2026; Petroleum Industry Act, 2021). Prior research indicates that transparency can support favourable stakeholder responses, yet reactions weaken or reverse when signals are viewed as incongruent with observable practices or stakeholder norms, rendering disclosure vulnerable to scepticism rather than trust formation (Mazutis & Slawinski, 2015; Mollenkopf et al., 2024). This interpretive challenge is amplified in multiactor supply chains because buyers, suppliers, contractors, and regulators occupy distinct evaluative positions and therefore apply different credibility thresholds to the same disclosure cues (Diebel et al., 2024; Howe & Jin, 2022). These conditions motivate the core question addressed in this study: when does sustainability disclosure generate supplier trust (ST) and willingness to collaborate rather than symbolic compliance in an emerging-market oil and gas supply chain (Searcy et al., 2022; Suddaby et al., 2017)? Drawing on signalling theory, we argue that disclosure influences counterpart behaviour to the extent that it conveys high-quality signals about unobservable commitment and follow-through (Connelly et al., 2011; Song et al., 2024). Integrating this logic with performative governance, we propose that disclosure is filtered through legitimacy-oriented judgements about sincerity and rule-conformity in contexts where capacity and scrutiny are misaligned (Ding, 2020; Norris et al., 2024). We conceptualise Sustainability Signalling Quality (SSQ) as the degree to which disclosed sustainability information is specific, decision-useful, and internally consistent, and we theorise that SSQ shapes Perceived Authenticity (PA) as an attribution about sincerity and likely follow-through (Connelly et al., 2011; Mazutis & Slawinski, 2015). We further theorised Policy Alignment Perception (PAP) as an institutional gate that determines whether SSQ is interpreted as credible compliance with salient policy scripts rather than as opportunistic impression management, thereby strengthening the association between SSQ and PA (Ding, 2020; Suddaby et al., 2017). The hypothesised mechanism is sequential: SSQ increases PA, PA builds ST, and ST increases CW, with PAP moderating the effect of SSQ on PA (Diebel et al., 2024; Howe & Jin, 2022). We tested the model using a multi-actor survey of sustainability, procurement, and regulatory managers in Nigeria’s oil and gas sector and estimated the hypothesised relationships using complementary PLS-SEM and CB-SEM procedures to balance predictive assessment with confirmatory evaluation under small-to-moderate sample conditions (Hair et al., 2019; Kline, 2023). The study contributes by specifying authenticity and policy alignment as analytically separable evaluative filters through which the quality of sustainability signals is converted into trust and collaboration, thereby explaining why heightened disclosure pressure may not yield cooperative governance outcomes in contested institutional environments (Ding, 2020; Montecchi et al., 2019). The remainder of this article is organised as follows. The next section reviews the literature on sustainable procurement and supply chain transparency, signalling quality and authenticity attributions, and performative governance under policy-script conditions in emerging-economy extractive sectors, culminating in the study hypotheses. The methodology section then details the research design, sampling and instrument development, and the dual-estimation strategy using PLS-SEM for prediction-oriented testing and CB-SEM for confirmatory sensitivity assessment. The subsequent results section reports measurement evaluation, structural path estimates, moderation and mediation tests, and multigroup comparisons across buyers, suppliers or contractors, and regulators. The discussion section interprets the findings through Performative Governance Theory (PGT) as the study’s sole theoretical engine and articulates the resulting theoretical implications for sustainability governance in supply chains. The article concludes by summarising contributions, acknowledging limitations, and outlining priority directions for future research.

The final dataset comprised 148 valid responses, and the hypothesised moderated sequential mediation model was estimated using PLS-SEM as the primary estimator, with CB-SEM reserved for a confirmatory sensitivity check to avoid estimation-paradigm mixing and to separate prediction-oriented inference from covariance-fit evaluation (Connelly et al., 2011; Hair et al., 2019, 2021; Kline, 2023). Nonparametric bootstrapping with 5000 resamples was used to obtain standard errors and confidence intervals for direct, indirect and interaction effects (Efron & Tibshirani, 1993; Hair et al., 2021; Preacher & Hayes, 2008). The analysis followed contemporary reporting conventions by progressing from measurement evaluation to structural estimation, and then to moderation, mediation and multigroup assessment (Hair et al., 2021; Henseler et al., 2015, 2016). All reflective constructs (Table 2), SSQ, PAP, PA, ST and CW, satisfied internal consistency reliability and convergent validity thresholds used in variance-based SEM (Bollen, 1989; Hair et al., 2019, 2021). Indicator loadings met the conventional 0.70 screening criterion, while Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability values exceeded recommended minima, and average variance extracted (AVE) values exceeded 0.50 for all constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2019, 2021).

Discriminant validity (Table 3) was assessed using both the Fornell–Larcker criterion and the heterotrait–monotrait ratio, with heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) prioritised as the principal diagnostic given its performance properties in variance-based models (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2021; Henseler et al., 2015). The square roots of AVE exceeded the corresponding inter-construct correlations, and all HTMT ratios remained below 0.85, supporting empirical distinctiveness among SSQ, PAP, PA, ST and CW (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2021; Henseler et al., 2015). Collinearity diagnostics indicated no problematic multicollinearity, which is consistent with the use of full-collinearity variance inflation factor (VIF) screening in PLS contexts (Hair et al., 2021; Kock, 2015; Podsakoff et al., 2003).

Structural paths (Table 4) were estimated with 5000 bootstrap resamples, and all hypothesised direct effects were statistically supported in the predicted directions (Efron & Tibshirani, 1993; Hair et al., 2021). Sustainability Signalling Quality positively predicted PA (β = 0.67, t = 8.92, p < 0.001), PA positively predicted ST (β = 0.71, t = 9.15, p < 0.001) and ST positively predicted CW (β = 0.64, t = 7.83, p < 0.001) (Connelly et al., 2011; Mazutis & Slawinski, 2015; Nyaga et al., 2010; Villena & Gioia, 2018). The endogenous constructs exhibited substantial explained variance, with R² values of 0.52 for PA, 0.57 for ST, and 0.63 for CW, which is consistent with a model designed for prediction-oriented inference in complex inter-organisational settings (Hair et al., 2019, 2021; Shmueli et al., 2019).

Mediation was evaluated using bias-corrected bootstrapped indirect effects (Table 4), consistent with current mediation-inference standards that prioritise interval estimation over product-of-coefficients normal theory (Hair et al., 2021; Preacher & Hayes, 2008; Zhao et al., 2010). The indirect effect of SSQ on ST through PA was positive and significant (β = 0.47, 95% CI [0.31, 0.62], p < 0.01), supporting the theorised authenticity mechanism linking signalling properties to relational confidence (Connelly et al., 2011; Hair et al., 2021; Mazutis & Slawinski, 2015). The sequential indirect effect SSQ → PA → ST → CW was also significant (β = 0.29, 95% CI [0.17, 0.44], p < 0.01), aligning with prior supply chain research that treats collaborative intent as a downstream behavioural orientation conditioned by trust (Nyaga et al., 2010; Preacher & Hayes, 2008; Villena & Gioia, 2018; Zhao et al., 2010). Moderation was modelled via an interaction term, and the estimated SSQ × PAP effect on PA was positive and statistically supported (β = 0.18, t = 2.06, p = 0.041), indicating that higher perceived policy alignment strengthens the translation of signalling quality into authenticity attributions (Aiken & West, 1991; Connelly et al., 2011; Ding, 2020; Hair et al., 2021). This pattern is consistent with the view that receivers’ interpretive anchors condition credibility assessments when verification capacity and enforcement reliability are contested (Connelly et al., 2011; Ding, 2020; Mazutis & Slawinski, 2015). Measurement invariance was assessed using measurement invariance of composite models (MICOM) before multigroup comparisons across buyers, suppliers or contractors and regulators, supporting group comparability of composite scores and reducing the risk that observed differences reflect measurement artefacts (Hair et al., 2021; Henseler et al., 2016). Multigroup estimates (Table 5) indicated that the moderation effect was strongest among regulators (β = 0.24, t = 2.21, p < 0.05) and weakest among suppliers or contractors (β = 0.12, t = 1.48, p > 0.10), while the core SSQ → PA, PA → ST, and ST → CW links remained directionally stable across roles (Hair et al., 2021; Henseler et al., 2016; Sarstedt et al., 2011).

CB-SEM estimation in AMOS served as a sensitivity check for the substantive conclusions, with fit assessed using covariance-model indices and established cut-offs, rather than importing variance-based fit claims into PLS reporting (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2023). The CB-SEM results indicated acceptable global fit (χ²/df = 2.34, CFI = 0.94, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.05), and the structural coefficients were directionally consistent with the PLS estimates (Hair et al., 2021; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2023). Procedural and statistical checks, including early–late response comparisons, multivariate outlier screening, and method-bias diagnostics combining full-collinearity VIF with a single-factor screen, supported the integrity of inference for this cross-sectional survey design (Armstrong & Overton, 1977; Groves et al., 2009; Kock, 2015; Podsakoff et al., 2003).

Positioning PGT as this study’s theoretical engine, this study’s results show that sustainability governance in Nigeria’s oil and gas supply chains is enacted through communicative performances that translate signal quality into relational order via authenticity and trust (Cornelissen et al., 2024; Ding, 2020; Pflueger et al., 2024; Suddaby et al., 2017; Sutton & Staw, 1995). Consistent with this mechanism-first framing, SSQ operates as the performative input, PA as the audience’s evaluative test, ST as the relational governance state, and CW as the behavioural manifestation of enacted legitimacy (Connelly et al., 2011; Mazutis & Slawinski, 2015; Mollenkopf et al., 2024; Song et al., 2024; Suddaby et al., 2017). The SSQ → PA result specifies a microfoundation for PGT by showing that audiences treat sustainability communication as a performance whose credibility is inferred from informational discipline and coherence rather than from disclosure volume alone (Connelly et al., 2011; Mollenkopf et al., 2024; Montecchi et al., 2019; Norris et al., 2024; Song et al., 2024). Within PGT, this relationship implies that signal ‘quality’ is not merely a transmission feature but a governance resource because it structures the conditions under which audiences grant propriety and withhold suspicion in settings where verification is costly (Budler et al., 2024; Gualandris et al., 2015; Haack et al., 2021; Suddaby et al., 2017; Von Berlepsch et al., 2024). Accordingly, the article advances PGT by moving from a general claim that governance can be performative to a testable mechanism that links communicative workmanship to legitimacy judgements that are consequential for inter-firm coordination (Cornelissen et al., 2024; Ding, 2020; Haack et al., 2021; Pflueger et al., 2024; Suddaby et al., 2017). The mediation PA → ST shows that authenticity is the evaluative hinge through which performative signals become relational governance, thereby identifying a specific conversion point that has often remained assumed rather than evidenced in sustainability governance arguments (Haack et al., 2021; Mazutis & Slawinski, 2015; Norris et al., 2024; Suddaby et al., 2017; Von Berlepsch et al., 2024). In PGT terms, trust emerges when audiences treat sustainability communication as binding, because perceived sincerity reduces the likelihood that disclosed commitments are decoupled from operational practice, which is the central risk under contested sustainability claims (Budler et al., 2024; Gualandris et al., 2015; Mollenkopf et al., 2024; Suddaby et al., 2017; Von Berlepsch et al., 2024). This trust mechanism is theoretically salient for supply chain scholarship because it reframes trust not as a dyadic ‘good’ that precedes governance, but as a governance outcome generated by repeated performances that stabilise expectations across heterogeneous actors (Mollenkopf et al., 2024; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Song et al., 2024; Villena & Gioia, 2018; Zaheer et al., 1998). The ST → CW finding and the sequential SSQ → PA → ST → CW pathway identify a performative governance chain through which communicative legitimacy becomes collective action, thereby grounding collaboration in enacted credibility rather than in contractual completeness (Brammer & Walker, 2011; Sodhi & Tang, 2019; Villena & Gioia, 2018; Walker & Brammer, 2012; Zaheer et al., 1998). This pathway extends trust-based collaboration accounts by specifying that, in sustainability domains, collaboration is conditional on a prior sequence of interpretive acceptance, relational confidence and willingness to incur coordination costs in the absence of full monitoring (Budler et al., 2024; Gualandris et al., 2015; Mollenkopf et al., 2024; Song et al., 2024; Villena & Gioia, 2018). In consequence, this study contributes to PGT by showing how performative legitimacy can ‘scale’ from communication to coordination, converting micro-level evaluations into meso-level governance capacity within supply chains (Cornelissen et al., 2024; Ding, 2020; Jia et al., 2024; Pflueger et al., 2024; Suddaby et al., 2017). The moderating role of PAP specifies the institutional script condition inside the PGT engine, showing that audiences treat sustainability performances as more believable when they are legible within prevailing public policy logics (Bitektine & Song, 2023; Cornelissen et al., 2024; Haack et al., 2021; Pflueger et al., 2024; Suddaby et al., 2017). This moderation result implies that performative governance is not only a firm-level act but also an interpretive field process in which state priorities supply the vocabulary through which stakeholders evaluate sincerity and competence (Ding, 2020; Haack et al., 2021; Norris et al., 2024; Song et al., 2024; Suddaby et al., 2017). The multigroup pattern, with stronger PAP effects among regulators than among suppliers, further supports an audience heterogeneity proposition within PGT, namely that institutional proximity shapes which aspects of a performance are treated as diagnostic for legitimacy (Cornelissen et al., 2024; Mollenkopf et al., 2024; Pflueger et al., 2024; Suddaby et al., 2017; Villena & Gioia, 2018). In Nigeria’s petroleum governance setting, the interpretive weight placed on PAP is consistent with a policy environment in which the Petroleum Industry Act structures regulatory expectations and stakeholder scrutiny, making policy legibility a practical heuristic for judging whether sustainability performances are consequential or cosmetic (Borha & Olujobi, 2023; Ding, 2020; Norris et al., 2024; Petroleum Industry Act, 2021; Song et al., 2024). These implications meet the study’s theory-first aim by demonstrating that performative governance in sustainability supply chains is an empirically tractable process in which communicative discipline (Table 6), authenticity judgements, and policy-script legibility jointly produce trust and coordination under institutional volatility (Cornelissen et al., 2024; Ding, 2020; Pflueger et al., 2024; Suddaby et al., 2017; Sutton & Staw, 1995). Methodologically, this study’s dual-estimation strategy strengthens inference by aligning predictive modelling with confirmatory model evaluation while maintaining reporting transparency, which responds to current expectations for replicable empirical claims in management and supply-chain research (Aguinis et al., 2018; Hair et al., 2019; Kline, 2023). At the same time, the theorised mechanism is framed as a bounded causal account rather than a universal claim, which is appropriate for cross-sectional designs where endogeneity risks must be acknowledged and managed through design logic and diagnostic reasoning (Aguinis et al., 2018; Ketokivi & McIntosh, 2017; Kline, 2023).

This study demonstrates that sustainability disclosure functions as performative governance in Nigeria’s oil and gas supply chains because communicative performances shape legitimacy judgements that subsequently organise inter-firm conduct under information asymmetry and regulatory uncertainty. The findings support the hypothesised mechanism in which SSQ predicts PA, PA predicts ST, and ST predicts CW, indicating that collaboration is not an automatic consequence of disclosure but a staged outcome of evaluative and relational processes. The sequential indirect pathway SSQ → PA → ST → CW further indicates that authenticity is the evaluative hinge through which sustainability performances become relational governance capacity and, in turn, cooperative intent. With PGT positioned as the article’s sole theoretical engine, the results specify a bounded microprocess: signal workmanship conditions authenticity attributions, authenticity attributions stabilise trust, and trust enables actors to accept coordination costs and exposure. The moderating effect of PAP indicates that performances become more credible when they are legible within salient policy scripts, such that institutional coherence functions as an interpretive amplifier, strengthening the conversion of SSQ into PA. In Nigeria’s petroleum governance setting, this is consistent with the proposition that perceived congruence with the Petroleum Industry Act and related policy priorities provides a pragmatic heuristic for judging whether sustainability performances are consequential or merely symbolic, particularly for regulators and other actors proximate to policy enforcement. Methodologically, the study contributes by implementing a transparent dual-estimation strategy, using PLS-SEM for prediction-oriented testing of moderated sequential mediation and CB-SEM as a confirmatory sensitivity check, alongside measurement evaluation and multigroup comparability procedures. Substantively, the results indicate that firms seeking supply-chain collaboration in institutionally volatile environments should treat sustainability communication as accountable performance, align disclosed priorities with policy scripts, and sustain consistency between claims, controls, and follow-through, because credibility is conferred through perceived sincerity and policy legibility rather than asserted through rhetoric alone. The findings of this study should be interpreted in the light of some limitations that define an agenda for further study. Firstly, the cross-sectional survey design limits causal inference and does not permit direct observation of how authenticity and trust judgements evolve as firms repeatedly signal. Secondly, reliance on perceptual measures introduces the possibility of common method effects and social desirability bias, even when diagnostics suggest acceptable levels, and this remains a generic constraint in survey-based sustainability research. Thirdly, the sample size and single-sector, single-country setting support mechanism testing but constrain external generalisation to other industries, governance regimes and sustainability issue domains. Fourthly, the model focuses on communicative and perceptual mechanisms and does not incorporate independent, fine-grained verification of underlying sustainability performance, thereby allowing stronger discrimination between substantive commitment and strategically framed disclosure. Future research should therefore prioritise longitudinal and event-based designs that track signalling sequences, policy shifts and trust recalibration, including tests of whether shocks to regulatory credibility or enforcement intensity strengthen or weaken the SSQ → PA → ST → CW chain. Comparative work across sectors and jurisdictions should examine whether PAP operates similarly where policy scripts are less salient, more stable or contested across agencies, and should assess whether audience-position heterogeneity generalises beyond regulators to community stakeholders, financiers and civil society intermediaries. Multi-method studies that combine survey inference with objective disclosure audits, third-party assurance data, contracting records, and observed collaboration outcomes would strengthen construct validity and reduce dependence on a single source. Finally, research should extend the performative governance mechanism into digital contexts by examining how platform-mediated transparency tools, algorithmic scrutiny, and real-time reporting architectures reshape authenticity attribution, trust formation, and collaboration decisions in supply chains characterised by institutional fragility.