Addressing ESG issues has become a point of interest for investors, shareholders, and governments as a risk management concern, while for firms it has become an emerging part of competitive strategy. In this study, a database from an independent ratings agency is used to examine, longitudinally, how Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) 300 firms are responding to ESG issues. Following institutional theory predictions, ASX300 firms are improving ESG performance over the 2002–2009 timeframe. Furthermore, over this timeframe, performance on the governance dimension (...) improved at a greater rate than environmental or social performance, as predicted. Lastly, high impact industries are predicted to demonstrate overall improved ESG performance relative to medium or low impact industries over the timeframe, but this hypothesis was not confirmed. Results are discussed along with implications and future research directions. (shrink)

Social practices of quantification, or the production and communication of numbers, have been recognized as important foundations of organizational knowledge, as well as sources of power. With the advent of increasingly sophisticated digital tools to capture and extract numerical data from social life, however, there is a pressing need to understand the ethical stakes of quantification. The current study examines quantification from an ethical lens, to frame and promote a research agenda around the ethics of quantification. After a brief overview (...) of quantification research and its uses in state and market organization, I discuss quantification in terms of three core subprocesses—capture, specification, and appropriation, illustrating and identifying ethical concerns around each process. Linking these processes to the performative effects of measures, I present a working model of quantification from which the discussion builds ideas for developing a research agenda around quantification. (shrink)

The question of what drives corporate social performance has become a vital concern for many managers and researchers of large corporations. This study addresses this question by adopting a multilevel, multistakeholder, and multimethod approach to theorize and estimate the relative influence of macro, meso, and micro factors on CSP. Applying three different methods of variance decomposition analysis to an international sample of 2060 large public companies over a time span of 5 years, our results show that firm-level factors explain the (...) largest proportion of variance in aggregate CSP as well as CSP oriented toward communities, the natural environment, and employees. These results support our hypotheses according to which CSP is not primarily driven by macrolevel or mesolevel factors, except for shareholder-oriented CSP, which is relatively more influenced by country-level factors. As a whole, our findings also point to the value of subdividing CSP into its stakeholder-specific components as this disaggregation allows for a more careful examination of distinct drivers of distinct aspects of CSP. (shrink)

While a growing number of firms are being evaluated on environment, social and governance criteria by sustainability rating agencies, comparatively little is known about companies’ responses. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with companies operating in Italy, the present paper seeks to narrow this gap in current understanding by examining how firms react to ESG ratings, and the factors influencing their response. Unique to the literature, we show that firms may react very differently to being rated, with our analysis yielding a fourfold (...) typology of corporate responses. The typology captures conformity and resistance to ratings across two dimensions of firm behaviour. We furthermore show that corporate responses depend on managers’ beliefs regarding the material benefits of adjusting to and scoring well on ESG ratings and their alignment with corporate strategy. In doing so, we challenge the idea that organisational ratings homogenise organisations and draw attention to the agency underlying corporate responses. Our findings also contribute to debates about the impact of ESG ratings, calling into question claims about their positive influence on companies’ sustainability performance. We conclude by discussing the wider empirical, theoretical and ethical implications of our paper. (shrink)

In a society where the ideology of shareholder value maximization prevails, how do evaluators make appraisal and bonus decisions when corporate social responsibility measures and financial measures in the balanced scorecard point in different directions? To explore this question, we conducted two studies to develop and test a conceptual framework. Participants were asked to evaluate the performance of two managers, using a case we wrote about a commercial bank. We found that evaluators are more willing to drop CSR performance measures (...) than financial measures from the evaluations; perceived CSR relevance is influenced by where evaluators stand in regard to CSR and also by where evaluators believe shareholders stand ; and there is a financial bias in appraisal and bonus decisions when CSR measures are used in the BSC, consistent with SVM ideology. We conclude by discussing the implications of the influence of SVM ideology on the use of CSR measures in terms of business research, practice, and education. (shrink)

The 2015 Paris Agreement set a global warming limit of 2°C above preindustrial levels. Corporations play an important role in achieving this objective, and methods have recently been developed to map global climate targets to specific industries, and individual corporations within those industries. In this article, we assess whether Sustainability ratings capture corporate performance in meeting the 2°C target. We analyze nine rating schemes used by investors and three commonly used in academic studies. Most rating schemes do consider corporate greenhouse (...) gas emissions in their analysis, whereas only a minority scale emissions by factors that have the potential to allow benchmarking against science-based targets. None take the final step of mapping climate indicators against the 2°C target. Furthermore, we find a lack of consistency in the climate change ratings of the databases used in academic studies. These results are concerning in the context of being able to meet global climate change goals. (shrink)

This study explores how paradoxical tensions between economic growth and environmental protection are avoided through organizational mythmaking. By examining the European oil and gas supermajors’ “CEO-speak” about climate change, we show how mythmaking facilitates the disregarding, diverting, and/or displacing of sustainability tensions. In doing so, our findings further illustrate how certain defensive responses are employed: regression, or retreating to the comforts of past familiarities, fantasy, or escaping the harsh reality that fossil fuels and climate change are indeed irreconcilable, and projecting, (...) or shifting blame to external actors for failing to address climate change. By highlighting the discursive effects of enacting these responses, we illustrate how the European oil and gas supermajors self-determine their inability to substantively address the complexities of climate change. We thus argue that defensive responses are not merely a form of mismanagement as the paradox and corporate sustainability literature commonly suggests, but a strategic resource that poses serious ethical concerns given the imminent danger of issues such as climate change. (shrink)

We considered the question of how corporate social responsibility differs between Canada and the U.S. Prior research has identified that national institutional differences exist between the two countries [Freeman and Hasnaoui, J Business Ethics 100:419–443, 2011], which may be associated with variations in their respective CSR practices. Matten and Moon [Acad Manag Rev 33:404–424, 2008] suggested that cross-national differences in firms’ CSR are depicted by an implicit–explicit conceptual framework: explicit CSR practices are deliberate and more strategic than implicit CSR practices. (...) We compared Canada and U.S. CSR and examined how CSR strategic alliances, CSR reporting, and CSR performance in the two countries correspond to implicit versus explicit CSR practices, which we link to stakeholder and signaling perspectives. We relied upon a new database, the Sustainalytics Global Platform, and we found a positive association exists between CSR strategic alliances and the number of years that firms have issued standalone CSR reports in both countries. Moreover, we found that CSR scores mediated this association in the U.S., as U.S. firms with high CSR scores typically engage in more CSR strategic alliances. In Canada, we did not find this mediating effect. Our findings suggest that U.S. firms engage in signaling activities that are more strategic and explicit than their Canadian counterparts. This paper closes with implications for practice and theory. (shrink)

This paper sheds further light on the role of quantification in corporate environmental disclosures. Quantification is an inherently social practice, which has attracted a fair amount of academic interest in recent years. At the same time, in the field of social and environmental accounting there is a paucity of research on quantification or the role it plays for organisations, for organisational communication and in societies more broadly. Accordingly, in this paper, we will draw on a qualitative case study to discuss (...) the potential implications that might arise from the use of quantified information in corporate environmental disclosures. Our case study illustrates the diverse effects of quantification suggested in the prior literature by placing them in the context of corporate environmental disclosures. We discuss how quantification implies fake precisionism and promotes commensuration of incomparables, thereby limiting the discussion to themes and questions preferred by company management. We maintain that quantification, while appearing to produce neutral and value-free information, has a substantive ethical dimension through how it implicates accountability relationships as well as the respective power relations between diverse stakeholders in societies. (shrink)