Affiliation:
1. School of Management, University of Bradford, Bradford BD7 1DP, UK
2. Departamento de Ingeniería Industrial y de Sistemas, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Tarapacá, Arica 1000000, Chile
3. COPPEAD Graduate Business School, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rua Paschoal Lemme 355, Rio de Janeiro 21949-900, Brazil
4. School of Business Administration, Penn State, Harrisburg, PA 16801, USA
5. Crummer Graduate School of Business, Rollins College, Winter Park, FL 32789, USA
Abstract
Utilizing Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methods based on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors to rank countries according to these criteria aims to evaluate and prioritize countries based on their performance in environmental, social, and governance aspects. The contemporary world is influenced by a multitude of factors, which consequently impact our lives. Various models are devised to assess company performance, with the intention of enhancing quality of life. An exemplary case is the ESG framework, encompassing environmental, social, and governmental dimensions. Implementing this framework is intricate, and many nations are keen on understanding their global ranking and avenues for enhancement. Different statistical and mathematical methods have been employed to represent these rankings. This research endeavors to examine both types of methods to ascertain the one yielding the optimal outcome. The ESG model comprises eleven factors, each contributing to its efficacy. We employ the Performance Contribution Analysis (PCA), Clifford algebra method, and entropy weight technique to rank these factors, aiming to identify the most influential factor in countries’ ESG-based rankings. Based on prioritization results, political stability (PSAV) and the voice of accountability (VA) emerge as pivotal elements. In light of the ESG model and MCDA methods, the following countries exhibit significant societal impact: Sweden, Finland, New Zealand, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Denmark, India, Norway, Canada, Germany, Austria, and Australia. This research contributes in two distinct dimensions, considering the global context and MCDA methods employed. Undoubtedly, a research gap is identified, necessitating the development of a novel model for the comparative evaluation of countries in relation to prior studies.
Reference50 articles.
1. The development of research on environmental, social, and governance (ESG): A bibliometric analysis;Senadheera;Sustain. Environ.,2022
2. Singh, A., and Bathla, G. (2023). Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Measures and Their Impact on Insurance Industry: A Global Perspective. The Impact of Climate Change and Sustainability Standards on the Insurance Market, Scrivener Publishing LLC.
3. Comparative China corporate governance standards after financial crisis, corporate scandals and manipulation;Dat;J. Secur. Sustain. Issues,2020
4. Daugaard, D., and Ding, A. (2022). Global drivers for ESG performance: The body of knowledge. Sustainability, 14.
5. Corporate transformation toward Industry 4.0 and financial performance: The influence of environmental, social, and governance (ESG);Alkaraan;Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change,2022
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献