Are we doing the same? A worldwide analysis of business commitment to the SDGs

Sónia Monteiro; Víctor Amor-Esteban; Kátia Lemos; Verónica Ribeiro; Sónia Monteiro; Víctor Amor-Esteban; Kátia Lemos; Verónica Ribeiro

doi:10.3934/environsci.2023025

AIMS Environmental Science

2023, Volume 10, Issue 4: 446-466. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2023025

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Special Issues

Are we doing the same? A worldwide analysis of business commitment to the SDGs

1.
Research Center on Accounting and Taxation, Management School - Polytechnic Institute of Cávado and Ave, Campus IPCA, Barcelos 4750-810, Portugal
2.
Departamento de Estadística, Universidad de Salamanca, Campus Miguel de Unamuno, c/Alfonso X El Sabio s/n, Salamanca 37007, Spain

Received: 31 January 2023 Revised: 21 April 2023 Accepted: 27 April 2023 Published: 25 May 2023

The COVID-19 pandemic has set back progress toward the 2030 Agenda. This raises concerns about the ability to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as outlined in this global action plan. The responsibility to act to protect the planet, eradicate poverty and improve the current and future situations of people around the world requires the commitment of all actors, especially the public and private sectors. The objective of this paper is twofold. First, it aims to demonstrate the level of business commitment to the 2030 Agenda at a global level in a post-COVID period (2020–2021). Second, it aims to analyse whether this commitment, in general, and for each of the SDGs, is determined by the institutional context in which companies operate, as associated with the regulatory frameworks and cultural values of the different continents and countries (coercive and normative isomorphism). Based on a sample of the world's leading listed companies, i.e. 8,201 observations for the period of 2020–2021, the multivariate statistical technique HJ-biplot was applied to analyse whether business commitment to the 2030 Agenda is determined by the institutional context of the companies. The results show significant differences in the level of business commitment to sustainable development across regions and countries, as well as in the prioritisation of the SDGs. Countries in Asia (the Philippines) and Europe (Spain and Portugal) stand out as leaders, with the highest levels of SDG commitment. The USA and Qatar show the lowest engagement in business contribution to the SDGs. SDG 8, SDG 13 and SDG 12 appear as the top three priorities for companies in all countries. The results show that, in countries characterised by collectivism and feminism and with strong legal systems (civil law countries), companies are under greater pressure to adopt sustainable practices, which enables countries to improve their commitment to the SDGs.
- 2030 Agenda,
- Sustainable Development Goals,
- SDG,
- sustainable development commitment,
- HJ-biplot,
- isomorphism
Citation: Sónia Monteiro, Víctor Amor-Esteban, Kátia Lemos, Verónica Ribeiro. Are we doing the same? A worldwide analysis of business commitment to the SDGs[J]. AIMS Environmental Science, 2023, 10(4): 446-466. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2023025

Related Papers:

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has set back progress toward the 2030 Agenda. This raises concerns about the ability to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as outlined in this global action plan. The responsibility to act to protect the planet, eradicate poverty and improve the current and future situations of people around the world requires the commitment of all actors, especially the public and private sectors. The objective of this paper is twofold. First, it aims to demonstrate the level of business commitment to the 2030 Agenda at a global level in a post-COVID period (2020–2021). Second, it aims to analyse whether this commitment, in general, and for each of the SDGs, is determined by the institutional context in which companies operate, as associated with the regulatory frameworks and cultural values of the different continents and countries (coercive and normative isomorphism). Based on a sample of the world's leading listed companies, i.e. 8,201 observations for the period of 2020–2021, the multivariate statistical technique HJ-biplot was applied to analyse whether business commitment to the 2030 Agenda is determined by the institutional context of the companies. The results show significant differences in the level of business commitment to sustainable development across regions and countries, as well as in the prioritisation of the SDGs. Countries in Asia (the Philippines) and Europe (Spain and Portugal) stand out as leaders, with the highest levels of SDG commitment. The USA and Qatar show the lowest engagement in business contribution to the SDGs. SDG 8, SDG 13 and SDG 12 appear as the top three priorities for companies in all countries. The results show that, in countries characterised by collectivism and feminism and with strong legal systems (civil law countries), companies are under greater pressure to adopt sustainable practices, which enables countries to improve their commitment to the SDGs.

References

[1]	United Nations (2019). Sustainable Development Goals Report, United Nations, New York.
[2]	United Nations (2021). Sustainable Development Goals Report 2021, United Nations, New York.
[3]	United Nations (2020). Shared responsibility, global solidarity: responding to the socio-economic impacts of COVID-19. United Nations, New York.
[4]	García-Sánchez I.-M, Aibar-Guzmán C, Núñez-Torrado M, et al (2022a). Are institutional investors "in love" with the sustainable development goals? Understanding the idyll in the case of governments and pension funds. Sustain Dev 30: 1099–1116.
[5]	Yamane T, Kaneko S (2022). The Sustainable Development Goals as new business norms: A survey experiment on stakeholder preferences. Ecol Econ 191: 107236.
[6]	García-Sánchez I M, Amor-Esteban V, Galindo-Álvarez D (2020). Communication strategies for the 2030 agenda commitments: A multivariate approach. Sustainability 12: 10554.
[7]	García-Sánchez IM, Aibar-Guzmán C, Serrano-Valdecillos C, et al. (2022b). Analysis of the Dialogue with Stakeholders by the IBEX 35 Companies. Sustainability 14: 1913.
[8]	García-Sánchez IM, Amor-Esteban V, Aibar-Guzmán C, et al. (2022c). Translating the 2030 Agenda into reality through stakeholder engagement. Sustain Dev 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2431 doi: 10.1002/sd.2431
[9]	Pizzi S, Caputo A, Corvino A, et al. (2020). Management research and the UN sustainable development goals (SDGs): A bibliometric investigation and systematic review. J Clean Prod 276: 124033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124033 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124033
[10]	Izzo MF, Ciaburri M, Tiscini R (2020). The challenge of sustainable development goal reporting: the first evidence from Italian listed companies. Sustainability 123: 3494.
[11]	van Zanten J, van Tulder R (2021). Improving companies' impacts on sustainable development: A nexus approach to the SDGS. Bus Strat Environ 30: 1–18. DOI: 10.1002/bse.2835 doi: 10.1002/bse.2835
[12]	García-Sánchez I, Cuadrado-Ballesteros B, Frias-Aceituno J (2016). Impact of the Institutional Macro Context on the Voluntary Disclosure of CSR Information. Long Range Plan 49: 15-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2015.02.004 doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2015.02.004
[13]	Rosati F, Faria L (2019a). Addressing the SDGs in sustainability reports: The relationship with institutional factors. J Clean Prod 215: 1312–1326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.10 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.10
[14]	Rosati F, Faria L (2019b). Business contribution to the Sustainable Development Agenda: Organizational factors related to early adoption of SDG reporting. Corp Soc Respons Environ Manage 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1705 doi: 10.1002/csr.1705
[15]	Amor-Esteban V, García-Sánchez I, Galindo-Villardón M (2018a). Analysing the effect of legal system on corporate social responsibility (CSR) at the country level, from a multivariate perspective. Soc Indic Res 140: 435–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1782-2 doi: 10.1007/s11205-017-1782-2
[16]	Tremblay D, Fortier F, Boucher JF, et al. (2020). Sustainable development goal interactions: An analysis based on the five pillars of the 2030 agenda. Sustain Dev 28: 1584–1596. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2107 doi: 10.1002/sd.2107
[17]	Sachs JD (2012). From millennium development goals to sustainable development goals. Lancet 379: 2206–2211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60685-0 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60685-0
[18]	Business and Sustainable Development Commission. (2017). Better business, better world. Pyblished by Business and Sustainable Development Commission, Systemiq and United Nations Foundation.
[19]	Heras-Saizarbitoria I, Urbieta L, Boiral O (2022). Organizations' engagement with sustainable development goals: From cherry-picking to SDG-washing? Corp Soc Respons Environ Manage 29: 316–328
[20]	GRI (2022). State of progress: business contributions to the SDGs. A 2020-2021 study in support of the Sustainable Development Goals. https://globescan.com/wp
[21]	UNGC, Accenture (2019). The Decade to Deliver, A Call to Business - CEO Study On Sustainability 2019. UNGC Strat Accent 1–43. https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insights/strategy/ungcceostudy
[22]	Jimenez D, Franco IB, Smith T (2021). A review of corporate purpose: An approach to actioning the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Sustainability 13: 3899. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073899 doi: 10.3390/su13073899
[23]	Sharma H, Vanapalli K, Samal B, et al. (2021). Circular economy approach in solid waste management system to achieve UN-SDGs: Solutions for post-COVID recovery. Sci Total Environ 800: 149605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149605 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149605
[24]	Mukarram M (2020). Impact of COVID-19 on the UN sustainable development goals (SDGs). Strat Anal 44: 253–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/09700161.2020.1788363 doi: 10.1080/09700161.2020.1788363
[25]	Elavarasan R, Pugazhendhi R, Shafiullah G, et al. (2022). Impacts of COVID-19 on Sustainable Development Goals and effective approaches to maneuver them in the post-pandemic environment. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29: 33957–33987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17793-9 doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-17793-9
[26]	Van der Waal JW, Thijssens T (2020). Corporate involvement in sustainable development goals: Exploring the territory. J Clean Prod 252: 119625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119625. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119625
[27]	Reverte C (2022). The importance of institutional differences among countries in SDGs achievement: A cross-country empirical study. Sustain Deve https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2354 doi: 10.1002/sd.2354
[28]	DiMaggio P, Powell W (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am Sociol Rev 48: 147-160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101 doi: 10.2307/2095101
[29]	La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A, et al. (1998). Law and Finance. J Polit Econ 106: 1113–1155.
[30]	Carlsen L, Bruggemann R (2022). The 17 United Nations' sustainable development goals: A status by 2020. Int J Sustain Dev World Eco 29: 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2021.1948456 doi: 10.1080/13504509.2021.1948456
[31]	Pizzi S, Del Baldo M, Caputo F, et al. (2022). Voluntary disclosure of Sustainable Development Goals in mandatory non-financial reports: The moderating role of cultural dimension. J Int Financ Manage Account 33: 83–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/jifm.12139 doi: 10.1111/jifm.12139
[32]	Tsalis TA, Malamateniou KE, Koulouriotis D, et al. (2020). New challenges for corporate sustainability reporting: United Nations' 2030 agenda for sustainable development and the sustainable development goals. Corp Soc Respon Environ Manage 27: 1617-1629.
[33]	Amor-Esteban V, Galindo-Villardón M, David F (2018b). Study of the Importance of National Identity in the Development of Corporate Social Responsibility Practices: A Multivariate Vision. Adm Sci 8: 50. doi: 10.3390/admsci8030050 doi: 10.3390/admsci8030050
[34]	Campbell J (2006). Institutional Analysis and the Paradox of Corporate Social Responsibility. Am Behav Sci 49: 925- 938.
[35]	García-Sánchez I, Rodríguez-Ariza L, Frías-Aceituno J (2013). The cultural system and integrated reporting. Int Bus Rev 22: 828–838. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2013.01.007 doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2013.01.007
[36]	Amor-Esteban V, Villardón M, María-Sánchez I (2017). Cultural values on CSR patterns and evolution: A study from the biplot representation. Ecol Indic 81: 18–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.05.051 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.05.051
[37]	Martínez-Ferrero Jennifer, Isabel-María García-Sánchez (2017). Coercive, Normative and Mimetic Isomorphism as Determinants of the Voluntary Assurance of Sustainability Reports. Int Bus Rev 26: 102–18.
[38]	Gabriel K (1971). The biplot graphic display of matrices with application to principal component analysis. Biometrika 58: 453-467. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/58.3.453 doi: 10.1093/biomet/58.3.453
[39]	Galindo MP (1986). An alternative for simultaneous representation: HJ-Biplot. Questiió: Quaderns d'Estadística, Sistemes, Informatica i Investigació Operativa, 10(1).
[40]	Nicolò G, Zanellato G, Tiron-Tudor A, et al. (2022). Revealing the corporate contribution to sustainable development goals through integrated reporting: a worldwide perspective. Soc Responsib J ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-09-2021-0373
[41]	Fonseca L, Carvalho F (2019). The reporting of SDGs by quality, environmental, and occupational health and safety-certified organisations. Sustainability 11: 5797.
[42]	Curtó‐Pagès F, Ortega-Rivera E, Castellón-Durán M, et al. (2021). Coming in from the cold: a longitudinal analysis of SDG reporting practices by Spanish listed companies since the approval of the 2030 agenda. Sustainability 13: 1178.
[43]	Subramaniam N, Mori R, Akbar S, et al. (2019). SDG measurement and disclosure by ASX150. available at: www.unglobalcompact.org.au/new/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/2019.08_SDG_Summary_Report_compressed.pdf
[44]	Yu S, Sial M, Tran DK, et al. (2020). Adoption and implementation of sustainable development goals (SDGs) in China –agenda 2030. Sustainability, 12: 6288.
[45]	Allen C, Metternicht G, Wiedmann T (2018). Initial progress in implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): a review of evidence from countries. Sustain Sci 13: 1453-1457. doi: 10.1007/s11625-018-0572-3 doi: 10.1007/s11625-018-0572-3
[46]	Eurostat (2022). Sustainable development in the European Union— Monitoring report on progress towards the SDGs in an EU context (2022 ed.). Eurostat.
[47]	Sarkar, Prabirjit, Common Law vs. Civil Law: Which System Provides More Protection to Shareholders and Creditors and Promotes Financial Development (August 21, 2011). Available at SSRN Journal, https://ssrn.com/abstract = 1913624 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1913624

Environ-10-04-025-s001.pdf

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2023 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)