A Global Bibliometric and Socio-Metric Review of Environmental, Social, and Governance Factors Influencing Corporate Investment and Sustainability

Corporate ESG factors include political motivation, gender, religion, pollution, emissions of greenhouse gases, pandemics, social issues, CSR, administrative structure, and leadership. The financial and managerial problems encompass sustainable governance, transparency in ESG practices, “the composition and scale of governing bodies and businesses, financial performance, reform and investment, corporate governance, internal and external employment, stakeholder rights and selection, and tangible growth”. An extensive systematic literature review analyzed the conclusions of more than 80 studies. This study examines sustainability indicators to identify the performance of sustainable businesses. ESG concepts are employed to assess the sustainability of a company. Growing ESG usage globally has shown its value in company performance assessment. Business ESGD ecology, financial performance, and social sustainability have been shown to improve sustainability and performance. Religion impacts performance since Islam-labeled companies benefit society and the environment but not the government. ESG openness improves with more females as board members and in the CEO role. COVID-19 changed ESG investments. ESG procedure outcomes boost manufacturing capacity, innovation, value creation, and financial performance. Economic stability has been positively correlated with social and environmental performance, demonstrating the link between company value and value society. Modern businesses must integrate the ESG bond for all shareholders to compete. This analysis addresses critical information gaps and fascinating topics, suggesting a future ESG research agenda. To find sustainable rivals, we prioritize eco-friendly and CSR processes. Shareholders, management, and human rights affect ESG performance in growing nations. Thus, managers should prioritize these KPIs to boost productivity and efficiency. Future studies should compare reference provider sustainability. Another study method is industrial segregation, which yields exact results. Conduct tests to gather industry baseline data and compare outcomes to current research.

[1] Adams, C. A., & Abhayawansa, S. (2021). Connecting the COVID-19 pandemic, environmental, social, and governance ESG investing and calls for ‘harmonization of sustainability reporting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 82, 10. [2] Akgun, O. T., Mudge, T. J., & Townsend, B. (2021). How company size bias in ESG scores impacts the small-cap investor. The Journal of Impact and ESG Investing, 1(4), 31–44. [3] Amankwah-Amoah, J. (2020). Stepping up and stepping out of COVID-19: New challenges for environmental sustainability policies in the global airline industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 271, 123000. [4] Bassen, A., & Kovács, A. M. (2020). Environmental, social, and governance key performance indicators from a capital market perspective. Wirtschafts-und unternehmensethik (pp. 809–820). Springer. [5] Bernardi, C., & Stark, A. W. (2018). Environmental, social, and governance disclosure, integrated reporting, and the accuracy of analyst forecasts. The British Accounting Review, 50(1), 16–31. [6] Bernow, S., Klempner, B., & Magnin, C. (2017). From ‘why’ to ‘why not’: Sustainable investing as the new normal. McKinsey & Company. [7] Berry, T. C., & Junkus, J. C. (2013). Socially responsible investing: An investor perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(4), 707–720. [8] Boffo, R., & Patalano, R. (2020). ESG investing: Practices, progress, and challenges. OECD. Available online at https://www.oecd.org/finance/ESG-Investing-Practices-Progress-Challenges.pdf checked on, 1(10). [9] Boland, A., Cherry, G., & Dickson, R. (2017). Doing a systematic review: A student’s guide. [10] Bravo, F., & Reguera-Alvarado, N. (2019). Sustainable development disclosure: Environmental, social, and governance reporting and gender diversity in the audit committee. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(2), 418–429.