Skip to main content

Environment, Social and Governance Norms: Assessing the Need for Shifting Focus from Corporate Governance to Sustainable Corporate Governance

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Sustainable Boardrooms

Part of the book series: Responsible Leadership and Sustainable Management ((RLSM))

  • 84 Accesses

Abstract

As an entity working towards balancing out diametrically different economic goals, a strong governance mechanism is of utmost importance in a Company. Over the years, there have been some impressive pieces of legislations aimed towards creating an objective, impartial and transparent governance structure for the corporations across global jurisdictions. However, as the looming challenges of climate change grows more significant with the passing days, the role and position of a Company is also witnessing an apparent shift. The growing clarion calls concerning the Corporations to undertake more responsibility in terms of becoming more sustainable in their operations, and hence, accordingly be held accountable for their actions which are not necessarily restricted to the confines of the Board or the Shareholder meetings any longer. In such a scenario, the previously understood notions of governance have been laid bare for critical scrutiny, especially in terms of their loopholes and shortcomings against the new age challenges. The augmented focus on ‘Sustainability’ has forced the Companies and the policy makers to revisit their notions of governance, thus, contributing heavily towards advocating of ‘Environment, Social and Governance’ norms as the ‘new golden standard of governance’ norms for Corporations across jurisdictions. The theoretical assessment of the above proposition although has enough merit to warrant a closer scrutiny. However, the same is not without flaws. While the increased possibility tedious paperwork often linked to the filing requirements under the ESG norms does sufficiently enough to paint a rather unglamorous picture on one hand, the additional concerns relating lack of standardisation of norms, awareness, personal and moral bias in terms of interpreting ESG ratings on the other hand, pose a direct threat to the veracity of the whole concept. In light of the aforementioned context, the present piece is an attempt by the authors, to undertake a critical theoretical assessment of ESG as a concept and in furtherance, attempt to understand its feasibility within the general framework of operations of the Indian companies. In doing so, the authors first attempt to construing a workable definition of the phrase ‘Sustainable Business’. Thereafter, they shall carry out a comparative assessment of ESG norms prevalent in EU and India, before, delving into primary practical roadblocks that could possibly hinder the implementation of the norms in a Company.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alamillos, R. R., Mariz, F., & d.,. (2022). How Can European Regulation on ESG Impact Business Globally? Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 15, 291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alva Group, 2021. The Difference Between Sustainability and ESG Policies. [Online] Available at: https://www.alva-group.com/blog/sustainability-and-esg-policies-difference/ [Accessed 14 December 2022].

  • Armour, J. (2009). Agency Problems. John M. Olin Centre for Law, Economics and Business, Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, R. J. (2014). Managing Corporate Sustainability and CSR: A Conceptual Framework Combining Values, Strategies and Instruments Contributing to Sustainable Development. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21, 258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger-Walliser, G., & Scott, I. (2018). Redefining Corporate Social Responsibility in an Era of Globalization and Regulatory Hardening. American Business Law. Journal, 55, 167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, F., Kölbel, J. F., & Rigobon, R. (2022). Aggregate Confusion: The Divergence of ESG Ratings. Review of Finance, 26(6), 1315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernow, S., Klempner, B. & Magnin, C., 2017. From “Why” to “Why Not”: Sustainable Investing as the New Normal’.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bethel, J. E., & Gillan, S. L. (2002). The Impact of Institutional and Regulatory Environment on Shareholder Voting. Financial Management, 31(4), 29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boffo, R., & Patalano, R. (2020). ESG Investing: Practices. OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. L. & Hamilton, A. (2022). Emerging EU ESG Requirements: Transatlantic Implications on Multinational Companies. The National Law Review, 13(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brundtland Commission. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, s.l.: World Commission on Environment and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camilleri, M. A. (2022). Strategic Attributions of Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management: The Business Case for Doing Well by Doing Good! Sustainable Development, 30(3), 409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CFA Institute (2021). Corporate Governance and ESG Disclosures in EU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, D. (2022). Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (6th ed.). Sage Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cichon, A. M., 2021. Viewpoint: Why Companies and Investors must leave ESG ratings behind. [Online] Available at: https://www.ipe.com/viewpoint-why-companies-and-investors-must-leave-esg-ratings-behind/10053120.article [Accessed 01 January 2022].

  • Cramer-Montes, J., 2017. Sustainability: A New Path to Corporate and NGO Collaborations. [Online] Available at: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/sustainability_a_new_path_to_corporate_and_ngo_collaborations [Accessed 26 December 2022].

  • Czarnezki, J. J. & Fiedler, K., 2016. The Neoliberal Turn in Environmental Regulation. Utah Law Review, Issue 1, p. 37

    Google Scholar 

  • Czarnezki, J. J., & Meyers, C. (2021). Sustainable Business Law? The Key Role of Corporate Governance. Environmental Law, 51, 991.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwyne, A., 2021. Are Green ETFs a Moral Hazard for Investors?, s.l.: TrustNet.com.

    Google Scholar 

  • Das, J. K., Taneja, S., & Arora, H. (Eds.). (2021). Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development (1st ed.). Routledge India.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delange, N. (2021). IFC ESG Guidebook. International Finance Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, 2021. Environment Key Performance Indicators: Reporting Guidelines for UK Businesses.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisma, D. G. (2021). Management Plan 2021. European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhiman, A., 2017. Accountability in Decision Making, s.l.: Indian Institute of Management Calcutta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimson, E., Marsh, P., & Staunton, M. (2020). Divergent ESG Ratings. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 47(1), 75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drempetic, S., Klein, C., & Zwergel, B. (2020). The Influence of Firm Size on the ESG Score: Corporate Sustainability Ratings Under Review. Journal of Business Ethics, 167(2), 333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J., 1997. Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. s.l.:Capstone.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, 2019a. Regulation of European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019a on Sustainability-Related Disclosures in the Financial Services Sector, Article 1, Article 2, s.l.: European Commision.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, 2020. Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 on the Establishment of a Framework to Facilitate Sustainable Investment, and Amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088, s.l.: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission, E. (2021). Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Amending Directive 2013/34/EU, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, as Regards Corporate Sustainability Reporting. European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, 2022. EU Taxonomy For Sustainable Activities, What the EU Is Doing to Create an EU-Wide Classification System for Sustainable Activities, s.l.: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Security Market Authority, 2018. Commission Action Plan on Financing Sustainable Development. [Online] Available at: https://finance.ec.europa.eu/publications/renewed-sustainable-finance-strategy-and-implementation-action-plan-financing-sustainable-growth_en#action-plan [Accessed 17 December 2022].

  • European Security Markets Authority, 2021. Strategy for Financing the Transition to a Sustainable Economy. [Online] Available at: https://finance.ec.europa.eu/publications/strategy-financing-transition-sustainable-economy_en [Accessed December 2022].

  • Gerber, M. S. et al., 2022. ESG: 2021 Trends and Expectations for 2022. [Online] Available at: https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2022/02/esg-2021-trends-and-expectations-for-2022 [Accessed 19 December 2022].

  • Giese, G., et al. (2019). Foundations of ESG Investing: How ESG Affects Equity Valuation, Risk, and Performance. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 45, 69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grantham Reseach Institute on Climate Change, LSE, (2021). Double Materiality: What is it and Why does it Matter. https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/double-materiality-what-is-it-and-why-does-itmatter/ [Accessed 29 Decemeber 2022].

  • Gupta, D. N., & Chanchal, A. (2022). Mainstreaming ESG & the Role of Board. Journal on Governance, 5(1), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, S., & Kumar, V. (2013). Sustainability as Corporate Culture of a Brand for Superior Performance. Journal of World Business, 48, 311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haft, R. J. (1981). Business Decisions by the New Board: Behavioral Science and Corporate Law. Michigan Law Review, 80, 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hespenheide, E. J., & Koehler, D. D. A. (2013). Disclosures of long-term business value – What matters? Deloitte University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, H., Wieman, V. & Ohl, A., 2022. Navigating the ESG landscape: Comparison of the “Big Three” Disclosure Proposals. [Online] Available at: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2022/10/10/navigating-the-esg-landscape-comparison-of-the-big-three-disclosure-proposals/ [Accessed 21 December 2022].

  • Hřebíček, J., Soukopová, J., Štencl, M. & Trenz, O., 2011. Integration of Economic, Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance Performance and Reporting in Enterprises,. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Volume LIX, p. 157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Indian Banks Association, 2016. National Voluntary Guidelines for Responsible Financing, s.l.: Indian Baks Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irani, J. J., 2005. Report of Expert Committee on Company Law, s.l.: Government of India.

    Google Scholar 

  • J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 2021. Environment, Social & Governance Report, s.l.: J.P. Morgan Chase & Co..

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, E., Fama, F., & C., M.,. (1983). Separation of Ownership and Control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kates, R. W., Parris, T. M. & Leiserowitz, A. A., 2005. What is Sustainable Development? Goals, Indicators, Values & Practice. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 47(3), p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, R., Parto, S., & Gibson, R. B. (2005). Governance for sustainable development: Moving from Theory to Practice. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 8(1/2), 12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klarin, T. (2018). The Concept of Sustainable Development: From its Beginning to the Contemporary Issues. Zagreb International Review of Economics & Business, 21(1), 67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kocmanová, A., Dočeklová, M., & Hřebíček, J. (2011). Corporate Governance and Sustainability. Economics and Management, 16, 543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A. (2016). The Social Responsibility of International Business: From Ethics to and the Environment to CSR and Sustainable Development. Journal of World Business, 51, 23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotsantonis, S., & Serafeim, G. (2019). Four Things No One Will Tell You About ESG Data. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 31(2), 50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lagasio, V., & Cucari, N. (2019). Corporate Governance and Environmental Social Governance Disclosure: A Meta-Analytical Review. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environment Management, 26(4), 701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez, C., Contreras, O. & Bendix, J., 2020. Disagreement among ESG Rating Agencies: Shall We Be Worried, s.l.: s.n.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovisolo, S. (2021). Climate Change as a Threat to Financial Stability: Can Solutions to This Problem Accelerate the Transition to a Low-Carbon Economy? A Critical Review of Policy and Market-Based Approaches’. In D. Busch, G. Ferrarini, & S. Grünewald (Eds.), Sustainable Finance in Europe: Corporate Governance, Financial Stability and Financial Markets, EBI Studies in Banking and Capital Markets Law (pp. 259–274). Springer International Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • M.K Ranjitsinh vs Union of India (2021) SCC OnLine 326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Corporate Affairs, 2009. Corporate Governance Voluntary Guidelines, s.l.: Government of India.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Corporate Affairs, 2019. National Guidelines on Responsible Business Conduct, s.l.: Government of India.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Corporate Affairs (2020). Report of the Committee on Business Responsibility Reporting, s.l.: Government of India.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, G. (2021). Palmer's Company Law. s.l.:Sweet & Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2021). ESG Investing and Climate Transition: Market Practices. OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pistor, K. (2014). The Evolution of Corporate Law: A Cross Country Comparison. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economics & Law, 23(4), 791.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prall, K. (2021). ESG Ratings: Navigating Through the Haze. [Online] Available at: https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2021/08/10/esg-ratings-navigatingthrough-the-haze/ [Accessed 30 December 2022].

  • Pyles, M. (2020). Examining Portfolios Created by Bloomberg ESG Scores: Is Disclosure an Alpha Factor? The Journal of Impact and ESG Investing, 1(2), 39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy, J., & Epstein, M. (2001). Sustainability in Action: Identifying and Measuring the Key Performance Drivers. Longe Range Planning, 34, 585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez-Camacho, C., Carranza, R., Martín-Consuegra, D., & Díaz, E. (2022). Evolution, Trends and Future Research lines in Corporate Social Responsibility and Tourism: A Bibliometric Analysis and Science Mapping. Sustainable Development, 30(3), 462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SEBI. (2012). Business Responsibility Reports, s.l.: SEBI.

    Google Scholar 

  • SEBI. (2022). Consultation Paper on Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Rating Providers for Securities Markets, s.l.: SEBI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silberhorn, D., & Warren, R. (2007). Defining Corporate Social Responsibility: A view from Big Companies in Germany and the UK. European Business Law Review, 19, 352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, S., Yadav, S. S., & Jain, P. (2016). Current Status of Corporate Governance in India. In A. K. Bhattacharyya (Ed.), Corporate Governance in India: Change and Continuity (pp. 43–63). Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sipiczki, A. (2022). A Critical look at the ESG Market, s.l.: CEPS Policy Insights.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siri, M., & Zhu, S. (2019). Will the EU Commission Successfully Integrate Sustainability Risks and Factors in the Investor Protection Regime? A Research Agenda. Sustainability, 11(22), 6292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Development Programme (2015). Discussion Paper on Governance for Sustainable Development, s.l.: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2022). Report of the forum on the impact of the implementation of response measures. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Twenty-Seventh session (20/CP.27), p. 37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varottil, U. (2012). The Advent of Shareholder Activism in India. Journal on Governance, 1(6), 582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, C., Brackley, A. & Petroy, E. (2019). Rate the Raters, 2019: Expert views on ESG Ratings, s.l.: SustainAbility.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeijl-Rozema, A., & v.,. (2005). Governance for Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development, 16, 410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarthak Mishra .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mishra, S., Singh, K. (2023). Environment, Social and Governance Norms: Assessing the Need for Shifting Focus from Corporate Governance to Sustainable Corporate Governance. In: Shrivastava, A., Bhusan, A. (eds) Sustainable Boardrooms. Responsible Leadership and Sustainable Management. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4837-6_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics