IMPACT OF ESG FACTORS ON SUSTAINABLE RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT
Abstract
Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) factors have grow to be increasingly more influential within the subject of Sustainable Responsible Investment (SRI), shaping the behavior of buyers and the strategies of agencies. This paper explores the effect of ESG factors on SRI, focusing on how those considerations have an effect on monetary overall performance, chance control, and lengthy-term cost introduction. Environmental factors consisting of weather trade, useful resource performance, and waste control are critical in assessing a employer’s sustainability and its potential to control environmental risks. Social factors, along with hard work practices, human rights, and community engagement, offer insights into a organization’s ethical stance and its relationships with various stakeholders. Governance elements, which include board variety, transparency, and commercial enterprise ethics, play a crucial role in making sure duty, powerful decision-making, and the prevention of unethical practices. This studies delves into case studies and empirical facts highlight the correlation between sturdy ESG performance and improved financial returns, lower threat profiles, and more resilience in risky markets. The have a look at additionally examines the growing call for for ESG-aligned investments, particularly amongst institutional investors, driven through both regulatory frameworks and evolving investor alternatives for sustainability-centered portfolios. Moreover, it addresses the demanding situations and opportunities that get up from integrating ESG factors into investment selections, emphasizing how this alignment can foster long-term profitability and enhance company reputations. Overall, the findings underscore the significance of ESG in selling moral investing while also improving financial consequences and contributing to broader sustainability desires.
Keyword : ESG elements, Sustainable Responsible Investment (SRI), environmental sustainability, social obligation, company governance, economic performance, chance management, lengthy-term fee advent, moral making an investment, sustainability-focused portfolios, weather alternate, regulatory frameworks, investor possibilities, company responsibility, resilience.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
1. Anderson, D.R.; Anderson, K.E. Sustainability risk management. Risk Manag. Insur. Rev. 2009, 12, 25. Available online:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-6296.2009.01152.x/full (accessed on 19 July 2021). [CrossRef] 2. Reed, R.G.; Wilkinson, S.J. The increasing importance of sustainability for building ownership. J. Corp. Real Estate 2005, 7, 339–350.[CrossRef] 3. Kiron, D.; Kruschwitz, N.; Reeves, M.; Haanaes, K.; Goh, E. The Benefits of Sustainability-Driven Innovation. In Own the Future; 4. Deimler, M., Lesser, R., Rhodes, D., Sinha, J., Eds.; Wiley Online Library: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012. [CrossRef] 5. de Francesco, A.J.; Levy, D. The impact of sustainability on the investment environment. J. Eur. Real Estate Res. 2008, 1, 72–87.[CrossRef] 6. Friede, G.; Busch, T.; Bassen, A. ESG and financial performance: Aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. J.Sustain. Financ. Invest. 2015, 5, 210–233. [CrossRef] 7. Escrig-Olmedo, E.; Munoz-Torres, M.J.; Fernandez-Izquierdo, M.A. Socially responsible investing: Sustainability indices, ESG rating and information provider agencies. Int. J. Sustain. Econ. 2010, 2, 442–461. [CrossRef] 8. Schultz, A. Future Returns: Sustainable Investing is Turning Mainstream. Barrons. 17 November 2020. Available online: https://www.barrons.com/articles/future-returns-sustainable-investing-is-turning-mainstream-01605640036 (accessed on 19 July 2021). 9. Drempetic, S.; Klein, C.; Zwergel, B. The Influence of Firm Size on the ESG Score: Corporate Sustainability Ratings Under Review.J. Bus. Ethics 2020, 167, 333–360. [CrossRef] 10. Xiao, Y.; Faff, R.; Gharghori, P.; Lee, D. An Empirical Study of the World Price of Sustainability. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 114, 297–310.[CrossRef] 11. Platt, R.B.; Billings, W.D.; Gates, D.M.; Olmsted, C.E.; Shanks, R.E.; Tester, J.R. The Importance of Environment to Life. BioScience 1964, 14, 25–29. [CrossRef] 12. Sciarelli, M.; Cosimato, S.; Landi, G.; Iandolo, F. Socially responsible investment strategies for the transition towards sustainable development: The importance of integrating and communicating ESG. TQM J. 2021, 33, 39–56. [CrossRef] 13. Porter Michael, E.; Serafeim, G.; Kramer, M. Where ESG Fails. Institutional Investor, 16 October 2019. 14. Gallo, M.A.; Kenyon-Rouvinez, D. The Importance of Family and Business Governance. In Family Business. A Family BusinessPublication; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2005. [CrossRef] 15. Castañer, X.; Oliveira, N. Collaboration, coordination, and cooperation among organizations: Establishing the distinctive meanings of these terms through a systematic literature review. J. Manag. 2020, 46, 965–1001. [CrossRef] 16. Keding, C. Understanding the interplay of artificial intelligence and strategic management: Four decades of research in review. Manag. Rev. Q. 2020, 71, 91–134. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2021, 13, 10868 13 of 14 17. Kitsios, F.; Kamariotou, M. Artificial Intelligence and Business Strategy towards Digital Transformation: A Research Agenda. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2025. [CrossRef] 18. Kitsios, F.; Kamariotou, M. Mapping new service development: A review and synthesis of literature. Serv. Ind. J. 2020, 40, 682–704. [CrossRef] 19. Kitsios, F.; Kamariotou, M.; Talias, M.A. Corporate sustainability strategies and decision support methods: A bibliometric analysis. Sustainability 2020, 12, 521. [CrossRef] 20. Kraus, S.; Schiavone, F.; Pluzhnikova, A.; Invernizzi, A.C. Digital transformation in healthcare: Analyzing the current state-ofresearch. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 123, 557–567. [CrossRef] 21. Marikyan, D.; Papagiannidis, S.; Alamanos, E. A systematic review of the smart home literature: A user perspective. Technol.Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 138, 139–154. [CrossRef] 22. Patel, A.B.; Desai, T.N. A systematic review and meta-analysis of recent developments in sustainable supply chain management.Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2019, 22, 349–370. [CrossRef] 23. Shams, S.R.; Vrontis, D.; Chaudhuri, R.; Chavan, G.; Czinkota, M.R. Stakeholder engagement for innovation management andentrepreneurial development: A meta-analysis. J. Bus. Res. 2020, in press. 24. Vial, G. Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2019, 28, 118–144. [CrossRef] 25. Klassen, R.K.; McLaughlin, C.P. The impact of environmental management on firm performance. Manag. Sci. 1996, 42, 1199–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 26. Lorraine, N.H.; Collison, D.J.; Power, D.M. An analysis of the stock market impact of environmental performance information. Account. Forum 2004, 28, 7–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 27. Feldman, S.J.; Soyka, P.A.; Ameer, P. Does improving a firm’s environmental management system and environmental performance result in a higher stock price? J. Invest. 1996, 6, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 28. Murray, A.; Sinclair, D.; Power, D.; Gray, R. Do financial markets care about social and environmental disclosure? Further evidence and exploration from the UK. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2006, 19, 228–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]