ESG concepts in business practice. Characteristics and assessment of common ESG frameworks

• Authors: Michał Wielechowski , Paweł Krasuski

Title variants

PL

Koncepcje ESG w praktyce biznesowej. Charakterystyka i ocena ram ESG

Abstracts

PL

W dzisiejszym środowisku biznesowym włączanie zasad środowiskowych, społecznych i ładu korporacyjnego (ESG – Environmental, Social, Governance) do strategii korporacyjnych ewoluowało od marginalnego rozważania do kluczowego elementu planowania strategicznego. W artykule scharakteryzowano i oceniono dziesięć powszechnie uznanych ram ESG. Wybór tych ram opiera się na przeglądzie literatury, uzupełnionym o analizę profesjonalnych stron internetowych i forów oferujących rankingi popularnych ram. Dodatkowo, w procesie selekcji wykorzystano własną wiedzę i doświadczenie. Ocena dziesięciu kluczowych ram ESG ujawnia spektrum podejść do zrównoważonego rozwoju i odpowiedzialności. GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) i PRI (Principles for Responsible Investment) są znane ze swojego globalnego zasięgu, podczas gdy SASB (Sustainability Accounting Standards Board) dostarcza wglądów specyficznych dla branży, ale w ograniczonym zakresie. Ramy CDP (Carbon Disclosure Project) i TCFD (Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures) wyróżniają się w aspektach środowiskowych i klimatycznych. Standardy IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards) rozwijają globalny zasięg, a IIRC (International Integrated Reporting Council) koncentruje się na integracji zrównoważonego rozwoju z raportowaniem finansowym. PRI i UNGC (United Nations Global Compact) opierają się na dobrowolnym zaangażowaniu, oferując szerokie ramy. Koncepcje CDSB (Climate Disclosure Standards Board) i IIRC, mimo że skoncentrowane, napotykają wyzwania w implementacji. Standardy Wydajności IFC (International Finance Corporation) są wszechstronne w finansowaniu projektów. Każda z ram, ze swoimi unikatowymi mocnymi stronami i wyzwaniami, różni się globalnym uznaniem, możliwością zastosowania i relewancją dla interesariuszy, przyczyniając się w różny sposób do praktyk zrównoważonego rozwoju.

EN

In today’s business environment, incorporating Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles into corporate strategies has evolved from being a marginal consideration to a core element of strategic planning. In the study, we characterize and assess ten widely recognized ESG frameworks. The selection of these frameworks is grounded in a literature review, complemented by an analysis of professional websites and forums that offer rankings of prevalent frameworks. Additionally, our own expertise in the field is used in this selection process. Our evaluation of ten key ESG frameworks reveals a spectrum of approaches to sustainability and responsibility. GRI and PRI are noted for their global scope, while SASB provides industry-specific insights but with limited scope. CDP and TCFD excel in environmental and climate aspects, respectively. IFRS Standards are developing a global reach, and IIRC focuses on integrating sustainability with financial reporting. PRI and UNGC are based on voluntary commitment, offering broad frameworks. CDSB and IIRC, while focused, encounter implementation challenges. IFC Performance Standards are comprehensive in project finance. Each framework, with its unique strengths and challenges, varies in global recognition, applicability, and stakeholder relevance, contributing differently to sustainable practices.

Keywords

EN

environmental; social; and governance (ESG); ESG frameworks; ESG standards; sustainability reporting; business strategy

PL

ESG; E – środowisko; S – społeczna odpowiedzialność; G – ład korporacyjny; ramy ESG; standardy ESG; raportowanie zrównoważonego rozwoju; strategia biznesowa

• Publisher: Mazowieckie Biuro Planowania Regionalnego w Warszawie
• Journal: MAZOWSZE Studia Regionalne
• Year: 2024
• Issue: Special Edition 2024
• Pages: 9-26

Dates

published

2024

Contributors

author

Michał Wielechowski

• Szkoła Główna Gospodarstwa Wiejskiego w Warszawie

• https://orcid.org/0000000213358971

author

Paweł Krasuski

References

• Alsayegh M.F., Rahman R.A., Homayoun S., 2020, Corporate economic, environmental, and social sustainability performance transformation through ESG disclosure, Sustainability, 12, 9, pp. 39–10, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093910
• Amel-Zadeh A., Serafeim G., 2018, Why and how investors use ESG information: Evidence from a global survey, Financial Analysts Journal, 74, 3, pp. 87–103, https://doi.org/10.2469/faj.v74.n3.2
• Barnett M.L., Salomon R.M., 2006, Beyond dichotomy: The curvilinear relationship between social responsibility and financial performance, Strategic Management Journal, 27, 11, pp. 1101–1122, https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.557
• Berg F., Koelbel J.F., Rigobon R., 2022, Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG ratings, Review of Finance, 26, 6, pp. 1315–1344, https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfac033
• Bénabou R., Tirole J., 2010, Individual and corporate social responsibility, Economica, 77, 305, pp. 1–19, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0335.2009.00843.x
• Bose S., 2020, Evolution of ESG reporting frameworks. Values at Work: Sustainable Investing and ESG Reporting, pp. 13–33, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55613-6_2
• Brammer S., Jackson G., Matten D., 2012, Corporate social responsibility and institutional theory: New perspectives on private governance, Socio-economic Review, 10, 1, pp. 3–28, https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwr030
• Busch T., Bauer R., Orlitzky M., 2016, Sustainable development and financial markets: Old paths and new avenues, Business & Society, 55, 3, pp. 303–329, https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650315570701
• Carroll A.B., 1999, Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct, Business & Society, 38, 3, pp. 268–295, https://doi.org/10.1177/000765039903800303
• Chatterji A.K., Durand R., Levine D.I., Touboul S., 2016, Do ratings of firms converge? Implications for managers, investors and strategy researchers, Strategic Management Journal, 37, 8, pp. 1597–1614, https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2407
• Clark G.L., Feiner A., Viehs M., 2015, From the stockholder to the stakeholder: How sustainability can drive financial outperformance. SSRN 2508281, http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2508281
• Cort T., Esty D., 2020, ESG standards: Looming challenges and pathways forward, Organization & Environment, 33, 4, pp. 491–510, https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026620945342
• DiMaggio P.J., Powell W.W., 1983, The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields, American Sociological Review, 48, 2, pp. 147–160, https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
• Eccles R.G., Klimenko S., 2019, The investor revolution, Harvard Business Review, 97, 3, pp. 106–116.
• Eccles R.G., Krzus M.P., 2010, One report: Integrated reporting for a sustainable strategy, John Wiley & Sons.
• Eccles R.G., Serafeim G., Seth D., Ming C.C.Y., 2013, The performance frontier: Innovating for a sustainable strategy: Interaction, Harvard Business Review, 91, 7, pp. 17–18.
• Edmans A., 2011, Does the stock market fully value intangibles? Employee satisfaction and equity prices, Journal of Financial Economics, 101, 3, pp. 621–640, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2011.03.021
• Elkington J., 1998, Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business, Environmental Quality Management, 8, 1, pp. 37–51, https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.3310080106
• Freeman R.E., 2010, Strategic management: A stakeholder approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Freiberg D., Rogers J., Serafeim G., 2020, How ESG issues become financially material to corporations and their investors, Harvard Business School Accounting & Management Unit Working Paper, (20-056), http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3482546
• Friede G., Busch T., Bassen A., 2015, ESG and financial performance: Aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies, Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5, 4, pp. 210–233, https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2015.1118917
• Friedman M., 2007, The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits [in:] W.C. Zimmerli, M. Holzinger, K. Richter (eds.), Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70818-6_14
• Hansmann H., Kraakman R., 2017, The end of history for corporate law. In Corporate governance, Gower, pp. 49–78.
• Henderson R., Steen E.V.D., 2015, Why do firms have “purpose”? The firm’s role as a carrier of identity and reputation, American Economic Review, 105, 5, pp. 326–330, https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20151072
• Ioannou I., Serafeim G., 2017, The consequences of mandatory corporate sustainability reporting, Harvard Business School Research Working Paper, pp. 11–100.
• Jean M.S., Grant E., 2022, Management System Enabled ESG Performance, In International Pipeline Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, https://doi.org/10.1115/IPC2022-86870
• Jenkins H., 2006, Small business champions for corporate social responsibility, Journal of Business Ethics, 67, pp. 241–256, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9182-6
• Jensen M., 2001, Value maximisation, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function, European Financial Management, 7, 3, pp. 297–317, https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-036X.00158
• Khan M., Serafeim G., Yoon A., 2016, Corporate sustainability: First evidence on materiality, The Accounting Review, 91, 6, pp. 1697–1724, https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51383
• Kotsantonis S., Serafeim G., 2019, Four things no one will tell you about ESG data, Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 31, 2, pp. 50–58, https://doi.org/10.1111/jacf.12346
• KPMG, 2020, The time has come: The KPMG survey of sustainability reporting 2020, KPMG Impact, KPMG International.
• Kramer M.R., Porter M.E., 2006, Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility, Harvard Business Review, 84, 2, pp. 78–92.
• Laasch O., Conaway R.N., 2015, Principles of responsible management: Glocal sustainability, responsibility, ethics, Cengage.
• Lyon T.P., Maxwell J.W., 2011, Greenwash: Corporate environmental disclosure under threat of audit, Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 20, 1, pp. 3–41, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2010.00282.x
• Mattiasich-Szokoli E., Szóka K., 2022, Defining and Evaluating the Information Content of Sustainability Reports. In 6th FEB International Scientific Conference 2022, https://doi.org/10.18690/um.epf.5.2022.16
• Orlitzky M., Schmidt F.L., Rynes S.L., 2003, Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis, Organization Studies, 24, 3, pp. 403–441, https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840603024003910
• Rasche A., Waddock S., McIntosh M., 2013, The United Nations global compact: Retrospect and prospect, Business & Society, 52, 1, pp. 6–30, https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650312459999
• Richardson B.J., 2008, Socially responsible investment law: Regulating the unseen polluters, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Riedl A., Smeets P., 2017, Why do investors hold socially responsible mutual funds?, The Journal of Finance, 72, 6, pp. 2505–2550, https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12547
• SASB, 2017, SASB Conceptual Framework. Sustainability Accounting Standards Board.
• Scalet S., Kelly T.F., 2010, CSR rating agencies: What is their global impact?, Journal of Business Ethics, 94, pp. 69-88, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0250-6
• Sullivan R., Mackenzie C. (eds.), 2017, Responsible investment, Routledge.
• Sætra H.S., 2021, A framework for evaluating and disclosing the ESG related impacts of AI with the SDG, Sustainability, 13, 15, 8503, https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158503
• TCFD, 2017, Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, Financial Stability Board.
• Whelan T., Fink C., 2016, The comprehensive business case for sustainability, Harvard Business Review, October, 21.

Identifiers

DOI

10.21858/msr.se.2024.01

Biblioteka Nauki

43889592