IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/sustdv/v31y2023i3p1845-1860.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deconstructing corporate environmental, social, and governance performance: Heterogeneous stakeholder preferences in the food industry

Author

Listed:
  • Mercedes Luque‐Vílchez
  • José A. Gómez‐Limón
  • M. Dolores Guerrero‐Baena
  • Pablo Rodríguez‐Gutiérrez

Abstract

Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance assessment has emerged as a way to analyze corporate sustainability. However, the literature suggests that stakeholders are not satisfied with advisory firms' current assessment approaches since they do not consider stakeholders' sustainability preferences. Adopting the stakeholder perspective, this study proposes a new approach to assess ESG performance by developing a stakeholder‐specific composite indicator that considers different stakeholder profiles. The proposed approach is empirically implemented to assess the ESG performance of European food firms, as the food industry plays an essential role in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. The results provide evidence of differences in individual stakeholders' preferences regarding ESG assessment, even within the same stakeholder group (e.g., investors, consumers, or non‐governmental organizations). However, the results reveal that almost all the stakeholders sampled showed individual firm rankings similar to generic rankings provided by advisory firms. In any case, this evidence suggests the need to reconsider how ESG composite indicators are constructed, underlining the value of enhanced transparency and communication with stakeholders to provide more valuable and reliable composite indicators.

Suggested Citation

  • Mercedes Luque‐Vílchez & José A. Gómez‐Limón & M. Dolores Guerrero‐Baena & Pablo Rodríguez‐Gutiérrez, 2023. "Deconstructing corporate environmental, social, and governance performance: Heterogeneous stakeholder preferences in the food industry," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(3), pages 1845-1860, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:sustdv:v:31:y:2023:i:3:p:1845-1860
    DOI: 10.1002/sd.2488
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2488
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sd.2488?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ataur Belal & Robin Roberts, 2010. "Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Corporate Social Reporting in Bangladesh," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 97(2), pages 311-324, December.
    2. Garre, Alberto & Ruiz, Mari Carmen & Hontoria, Eloy, 2020. "Application of Machine Learning to support production planning of a food industry in the context of waste generation under uncertainty," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 7(C).
    3. Charl de Villiers & Ana Marques, 2016. "Corporate social responsibility, country-level predispositions, and the consequences of choosing a level of disclosure," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(2), pages 167-195, February.
    4. Cory Searcy, 2012. "Corporate Sustainability Performance Measurement Systems: A Review and Research Agenda," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 107(3), pages 239-253, May.
    5. Imran Abbas Jadoon & Akhter Ali & Usman Ayub & Muhammad Tahir & Raheel Mumtaz, 2021. "The impact of sustainability reporting quality on the value relevance of corporate sustainability performance," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(1), pages 155-175, January.
    6. Hans B. Christensen & Luzi Hail & Christian Leuz, 2021. "Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: economic analysis and literature review," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 1176-1248, September.
    7. Ericka Costa & Caterina Pesci, 2016. "Social impact measurement: why do stakeholders matter?," Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 7(1), pages 99-124, March.
    8. Nuri Cihat Onat & Murat Kucukvar & Anthony Halog & Scott Cloutier, 2017. "Systems Thinking for Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: A Review of Recent Developments, Applications, and Future Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-25, April.
    9. Richard Fu & Lei Wedge, 2011. "Board Independence and Mutual Fund Manager Turnover," The Financial Review, Eastern Finance Association, vol. 46(4), pages 621-641, November.
    10. Bernhard Zwergel & Anett Wins & Christian Klein, 2019. "On the heterogeneity of sustainable and responsible investors," Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(4), pages 282-294, October.
    11. Diaz-Balteiro, Luis & Romero, Carlos, 2004. "In search of a natural systems sustainability index," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 401-405, July.
    12. Pollesch, N.L. & Dale, V.H., 2016. "Normalization in sustainability assessment: Methods and implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 195-208.
    13. Haozhe (Michael) Song & Gunnar Rimmel, 2021. "Heterogeneity in CSR activities: is CSR investment monotonically associated with earnings quality?," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(1), pages 1-29, January.
    14. Chitra Sriyani De Silva Lokuwaduge & Kumudini Heenetigala, 2017. "Integrating Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Disclosure for a Sustainable Development: An Australian Study," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(4), pages 438-450, May.
    15. Sylvia Grewatsch & Ingo Kleindienst, 2017. "When Does It Pay to be Good? Moderators and Mediators in the Corporate Sustainability–Corporate Financial Performance Relationship: A Critical Review," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 145(2), pages 383-416, October.
    16. Ericka Costa & Caterina Pesci, 2016. "Social impact measurement: why do stakeholders matter?," Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 7(1), pages 99-124, March.
    17. Jan Bebbington, 2001. "Sustainable development: a review of the international development, business and accounting literature," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(2), pages 128-157, June.
    18. Hazar Ben Barka & Ali Dardour, 2015. "Investigating the relationship between director’s profile, board interlocks and corporate social responsibility," Post-Print halshs-01139747, HAL.
    19. Jay Whitehead, 2017. "Prioritizing Sustainability Indicators: Using Materiality Analysis to Guide Sustainability Assessment and Strategy," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(3), pages 399-412, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. María Luisa Pajuelo Moreno & Teresa Duarte-Atoche, 2019. "Relationship between Sustainable Disclosure and Performance—An Extension of Ullmann’s Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-33, August.
    2. Rubén Raedo, 2021. "Urban Sustainability Deficits: The Urban Non-Sustainability Index (UNSI) as a Tool for Urban Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-25, November.
    3. Wided Bedoui & Mame Gningue, 2019. "An integrated performance monitoring model based on port stakeholders perceptions [Modèle de pilotage de la performance globale basé sur les perceptions des parties prenantes portuaires]," Post-Print hal-02901541, HAL.
    4. Tobias Gerwing & Peter Kajüter & Maximilian Wirth, 2022. "The role of sustainable corporate governance in mandatory sustainability reporting quality," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 517-555, April.
    5. Thaís Vieira Nunhes & Merce Bernardo & Otávio José de Oliveira, 2020. "Rethinking the Way of Doing Business: A Reframe of Management Structures for Developing Corporate Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-32, February.
    6. Milind Kumar Jha & K. Rangarajan, 2020. "Analysis of corporate sustainability performance and corporate financial performance causal linkage in the Indian context," Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 1-30, December.
    7. María Jesús Muñoz-Torres & María Ángeles Fernández-Izquierdo & Juana M. Rivera-Lirio & Idoya Ferrero-Ferrero & Elena Escrig-Olmedo & José Vicente Gisbert-Navarro & María Chiara Marullo, 2018. "An Assessment Tool to Integrate Sustainability Principles into the Global Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-20, February.
    8. Marian H. Amin & Heba Ali & Ehab K. A. Mohamed, 2024. "Corporate social responsibility disclosure on Twitter: Signalling or greenwashing? Evidence from the UK," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(2), pages 1745-1761, April.
    9. Fatma Koroglu, 2023. "Social Impact & Project Performance Measurement Methods and Challenges in Practice: A Study on Women Empowerment NGOs," GATR Journals jber232, Global Academy of Training and Research (GATR) Enterprise.
    10. Natasha Layton & Natasha Brusco & Tammy Gardner & Libby Callaway, 2021. "Co-Design of Social Impact Domains with the Huntington’s Disease Community," Disabilities, MDPI, vol. 1(2), pages 1-16, May.
    11. Jürgen Kopfmüller & Wolfgang Weimer-Jehle & Tobias Naegler & Jens Buchgeister & Klaus-Rainer Bräutigam & Volker Stelzer, 2021. "Integrative Scenario Assessment as a Tool to Support Decisions in Energy Transition," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-34, March.
    12. Andrea Cardoni & Evgeniia Kiseleva & Paolo Taticchi, 2020. "In Search of Sustainable Value: A Structured Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-18, January.
    13. Silvia Romero & Silvia Ruiz & Belen Fernandez‐Feijoo, 2019. "Sustainability reporting and stakeholder engagement in Spain: Different instruments, different quality," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 221-232, January.
    14. Björn Christensen & Alexander Himme, 2017. "Improving environmental management accounting: how to use statistics to better determine energy consumption," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 227-243, May.
    15. Migliavacca, Alessandro, 2024. "Value relevance of accounting numbers and sustainability information in Europe: Empirical evidence from nonfinancial companies," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    16. Sahar E-Vahdati & Wan Nordin Wan-Hussin & Mohd Shazwan Mohd Ariffin, 2023. "The Value Relevance of ESG Practices in Japan and Malaysia: Moderating Roles of CSR Award, and Former CEO as a Board Chair," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-17, February.
    17. Aarti Singh & Sushil & Samarjit Kar & Dragan Pamucar, 2019. "Stakeholder Role for Developing a Conceptual Framework of Sustainability in Organization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-16, January.
    18. Xin Xu & Zizhen Liu, 2023. "ESG, Cultural Distance and Corporate Profitability: Evidence from Chinese Multinationals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-23, April.
    19. Gaurav Jyoti & Ashu Khanna, 2024. "How does sustainability performance affect firms' market performance? An empirical investigation in the Indian context," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 20457-20483, August.
    20. Belal, Ataur Rahman & Cooper, Stuart, 2011. "The absence of corporate social responsibility reporting in Bangladesh," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 22(7), pages 654-667.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:sustdv:v:31:y:2023:i:3:p:1845-1860. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1719 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.