Bridging CSR & ESG for Competitive Advantage: A Comparative Study of Multinational Strategies in Resource – Constrained Market

Prepared by the researche 

•  Gina Ali Rizk – Business Administration – Marketing Management, Islamic Azad University- Tehran – Iran, Beirut, Lebanon,
• Corresponding Author: Dr. Hassan Jorfi, Department of Management, Faculty of
• Management, Farhangian University, Ahvaz, Iran

DAC Democratic Arabic Center GmbH

Journal index of exploratory studies : Nineteenth Issue – September 2025

A Periodical International Journal published by the “Democratic Arab Center” Germany – Berlin

:To download the pdf version of the research papers, please visit the following link

https://democraticac.de/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/%D9%85%D8%AC%D9%84%D8%A9-%D9%85%D8%A4%D8%B4%D8%B1-%D9%84%D9%84%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B9%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%AF%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%B9-%D8%B9%D8%B4%D8%B1-%D8%A3%D9%8A%D9%84%D9%88%D9%84-%E2%80%93-%D8%B3%D8%A8%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%A8%D8%B1-2025.pdf

Abstract

This study examines how multinational corporations (MNCs) integrate Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) strategies in Lebanon, an emerging market with acute regulatory and economic constraints. Using a qualitative comparative case study of Procter & Gamble, Unilever, and Johnson & Johnson (2020–2023), we conduct thematic analysis of sustainability reports, ESG ratings, and independent audits. Findings show heterogeneous ESG integration across firms and indicators: stronger governance and transparency correlate with more credible environmental performance, while Lebanon’s outdated and weakly enforced regulations, limited financing, and low public demand constrain adoption. Nonetheless, actionable levers—diaspora engagement, targeted pilot programs, and regional partnerships—can accelerate progress. This paper is the first to pair a cross-case analysis of global ESG leaders with a Lebanon-specific ESG transition framework, addressing a critical gap on CSR–ESG integration in institutionally fragile markets. The study extends institutional and stakeholder theory by demonstrating how ESG norms are hybridized locally and how non-traditional stakeholders can substitute for weak formal enforcement. Practically, it offers policymakers and managers a context-sensitive roadmap for shifting from CSR to ESG in resource-constrained environments. Keywords: Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR); Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG); sustainability; emerging markets; Lebanon; comparative case study.

Introduction

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has evolved from a voluntary, philanthropy-oriented activity into a strategic imperative for multinational corporations (MNCs), particularly under the growing influence of the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) framework. ESG provides measurable indicators that align business performance with global sustainability targets such as the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), enabling investors, regulators, and stakeholders to hold companies accountable.

Foundational models such as Carroll’s CSR Pyramid (1991) and Elkington’s Triple Bottom Line (1998) established early conceptualisations of corporate responsibility, while emerging frameworks like ESG and Doughnut Economics (Raworth, 2017) have emphasised quantifiable impact, planetary boundaries, and social equity. Despite these advancements, the transition from CSR to ESG is not uniform across contexts, with implementation heavily influenced by regulatory maturity, market expectations, and socio-cultural factors.

While CSR and ESG have been extensively studied in advanced economies, little is known about how MNCs integrate ESG principles into CSR strategies in emerging markets characterised by institutional voids, weak regulation, and economic instability. In Lebanon specifically, ESG adoption remains under-researched, despite the country’s urgent sustainability challenges and the presence of global corporations with established ESG commitments. Existing studies rarely combine a global comparative lens with a context-specific analysis of barriers and opportunities in ESG integration.

While CSR and ESG have been widely examined in advanced economies, far less is known about how these frameworks interact in fragile emerging markets where regulatory enforcement is weak and socio-economic volatility is high. No prior research has combined a comparative analysis of leading multinational ESG strategies with the development of a locally tailored ESG transition framework for Lebanon. This omission limits both theoretical understanding of CSR–ESG integration under institutional constraints and practical guidance for policy and business in such contexts. Addressing this dual gap offers an opportunity to extend institutional and stakeholder theory while producing actionable, context-specific sustainability strategies.

This paper contributes by developing a Lebanon-specific ESG transition framework that bridges global best practices with local constraints. The findings inform both theory—by extending CSR-ESG integration models to emerging-market contexts—and practice—by offering policymakers and business leaders actionable strategies for ESG adoption in resource-constrained environments. The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 reviews relevant literature; Section 3 outlines the methodology; Section 4 presents the comparative analysis; Section 5 discusses findings in light of theory; and Section 6 concludes with implications, limitations, and directions for future research.

2. Literature Review (condensed and thematic)

2.1 From CSR to ESG: Conceptual Evolution

CSR has historically encompassed economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities (Carroll, 1991). The Triple Bottom Line (Elkington, 1998) expanded this perspective by integrating environmental and social impact alongside profit. More recently, the ESG framework has introduced quantifiable metrics across environmental, social, and governance dimensions, enabling more rigorous performance assessment (Kotsantonis et al., 2016). Doughnut Economics (Raworth, 2017) further reframes sustainability by defining ecological ceilings and social foundations for equitable growth. This conceptual evolution underscores the shift from voluntary initiatives to strategic, measurable commitments.

2.2 ESG in Corporate Governance and Performance

Empirical research shows that integrating ESG into corporate governance enhances transparency, mitigates risk, and supports long-term value creation (Amel-Zadeh & Serafeim, 2018). Studies in emerging markets highlight mixed progress: regulatory support and stakeholder engagement can accelerate ESG adoption (Anonymous, 2024), while cultural inertia and weak enforcement remain barriers. ESG integration has been linked to improved sustainability performance through organisational culture and employee initiative (Chen et al., 2025), and embedding ESG within performance frameworks like the Balanced Scorecard can yield cross-dimensional benefits (Aspiati & Damau, 2024).

2.3 ESG in Emerging Markets: Barriers and Opportunities

Emerging markets face systemic obstacles to ESG adoption, including outdated regulations, limited data quality, and low consumer awareness (El Ghoul et al., 2021; Pündrich et al., 2022). Yet ESG also offers legitimacy gains for firms seeking international expansion (Jiang et al., 2024) and opportunities for innovation in resource-constrained contexts. Lebanon exemplifies these tensions: institutional weaknesses coexist with potential leverage points such as diaspora engagement, regional partnerships, and entrepreneurial pilots.

2.4 Gap in the Literature

While CSR-ESG integration has been widely studied in advanced economies, few studies examine how MNCs adapt global ESG standards to emerging markets with fragile institutions. Lebanon’s case remains underexplored, despite the presence of multinational actors with established ESG commitments. No prior research has offered a comparative analysis of leading MNCs’ ESG strategies alongside a locally tailored ESG transition framework. This study addresses that gap.

Although the CSR–ESG transition has been widely studied in advanced economies, and to some extent in broader emerging market contexts, Lebanon remains almost entirely absent from this discourse. No existing work has offered a multi-case comparative analysis of global ESG leaders while simultaneously producing a Lebanon-specific, context-sensitive ESG framework. This absence leaves a void in understanding how globally recognized ESG standards can be operationalized in markets with structural weaknesses, thereby limiting both academic insight and policy guidance. This study directly addresses that void by bridging comparative international evidence with locally grounded strategic recommendations.

Table 1: Comparative Overview of CSR and ESG Frameworks

Source: Author’s synthesis based on Carroll (1991), Elkington (1998), ESG frameworks (Kotsantonis et al., 2016), and Raworth (2017)

This table contrasts four leading sustainability frameworks — Carroll’s CSR Pyramid, the Triple Bottom Line (TBL), the ESG framework, and Doughnut Economics — across core idea, historical timeframe, environmental emphasis, measurability, and primary audience. The comparison highlights how each model prioritises different dimensions of corporate sustainability, from the primarily normative and stakeholder-focused CSR approaches to the more metrics-driven ESG model, and the systems-based perspective of Doughnut Economics.

Note: CSR = Corporate Social Responsibility; ESG = Environmental, Social, and Governance; TBL = Triple Bottom Line.

Source: Author’s synthesis based on Carroll (1991), Elkington (1998), Kotsantonis et al. (2016), and Raworth (2017).

Table 2: How ESG Differs from Traditional CSR

Source: Author’s summary adapted from ESG and CSR literature, including Kotsantonis et al. (2016) and Visser (2010)

This table summarizes the main distinctions between traditional Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) practices and the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) framework. While CSR initiatives are often voluntary and philanthropic in nature, ESG adopts a measurable, strategic, and risk-based approach that prioritizes long-term value creation. The table compares the two models across approach, focus, accountability, measurement, and target audience, illustrating ESG’s stronger emphasis on quantifiable performance and external oversight.

Note: CSR = Corporate Social Responsibility; ESG = Environmental, Social, and Governance; KPI = Key Performance Indicator.

Source: Author’s synthesis based on Kotsantonis et al. (2016) and Visser (2010).

Figure 1 shows the proposed model of the present study

This conceptual model illustrates the hypothesised relationships examined in the study, linking Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) practices to sustainability outcomes. The framework positions CSR and ESG as interrelated constructs influencing environmental and social performance, moderated by institutional and market factors. Arrows indicate the direction of proposed causal relationships.

Note: CSR = Corporate Social Responsibility; ESG = Environmental, Social, and Governance.

3. Methodology

3.1 Research Design

This study adopts a qualitative comparative case study design to explore how multinational corporations integrate ESG principles into CSR strategies in emerging markets. A qualitative approach is appropriate because the research seeks to uncover contextualised processes, strategic interpretations, and adaptive mechanisms that cannot be fully captured through quantitative measures (Yin, 2018). The comparative design allows for identifying similarities and differences across cases, enhancing analytical depth.

3.2 Case Selection

Three multinational corporations—Procter & Gamble, Unilever, and Johnson & Johnson—were purposively selected based on: (1) global presence and influence in the personal care and consumer goods sectors; (2) publicly documented CSR and ESG commitments; (3) availability of ESG performance data from 2020–2023; and (4) operational relevance to Lebanon’s market. These cases represent diverse ESG maturity levels, offering a robust basis for comparative analysis.

Table 3: Comparative Analysis of CSR Frameworks

Source: Author’s synthesis based on Elkington (1997), Friede et al. (2015), Carroll (1991), and Schwartz & Carroll (2003).

This table compares four widely cited sustainability and responsibility frameworks: the Triple Bottom Line (TBL), ESG Indicators, Carroll’s CSR Pyramid, and the Schwartz & Carroll (2003) model. The comparison includes each framework’s core focus, typical applications, and representative academic citations. The analysis highlights the differences between normative conceptual models (e.g., CSR Pyramid) and metrics-driven approaches (e.g., ESG Indicators), showing how each is applied in teaching, strategy, reporting, or investment contexts.

Note: CSR = Corporate Social Responsibility; ESG = Environmental, Social, and Governance; TBL = Triple Bottom Line.

Source: Author’s synthesis based on Elkington (1997), Friede et al. (2015), Carroll (1991), and Schwartz & Carroll (2003).

3.3 Data Sources

• Data were drawn from multiple secondary sources to ensure triangulation:
• Corporate sustainability and ESG reports (2020–2023)
• ESG ratings from MSCI and Sustainalytics
• Independent third-party audits
• Peer-reviewed academic literature
• Emphasis was placed on environmental indicators—greenhouse gas emissions, renewable energy adoption, waste management, and water stewardship—given their centrality to Lebanon’s sustainability challenges.

3.4 Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using thematic comparative analysis, following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase framework. Initial familiarization was followed by open coding to identify recurring patterns in ESG integration. Codes were then grouped into themes aligned with theoretical constructs (e.g., Carroll’s Pyramid, Triple Bottom Line, ESG indicators). Cross-case comparison was conducted to identify convergences, divergences, and context-specific adaptations.

To ensure reliability, only publicly available corporate sustainability reports, ESG ratings, and third-party audit documents published between 2020 and 2023 were included. Sources were cross-verified across at least two independent repositories (e.g., corporate websites, Bloomberg ESG database, Sustainalytics). Documents were excluded if they lacked author identification, publication date, or if they did not provide verifiable metrics. This approach aligns with recommended protocols for secondary qualitative research in corporate sustainability (Yin, 2018), ensuring both source credibility and data consistency.

Table 4: ESG Environmental Performance Comparison of P&G, Unilever, and Johnson & Johnson

Source: Author’s compilation based on public ESG reports from P&G, Unilever, and J&J (2020–2023), MSCI & Sustainalytics ratings

This table compares environmental performance indicators for three multinational corporations operating in Lebanon’s Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) and healthcare sectors over the period 2020–2023. Indicators include water stewardship initiatives, carbon emissions targets and achievements, sustainable packaging innovations, renewable energy adoption, and independent Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) ratings from MSCI and Sustainalytics. The data highlight variations in strategic priorities, such as Unilever’s leadership in renewable energy adoption, Procter & Gamble’s water conservation focus, and Johnson & Johnson’s healthcare-linked sustainability strategies.

Note: ESG = Environmental, Social, and Governance; FMCG = Fast-Moving Consumer Goods; MSCI = Morgan Stanley Capital International ESG Ratings; Scope 1 & Scope 2 = Direct and purchased energy-related greenhouse gas emissions.

Source: Author’s compilation from company ESG reports (2020–2023), MSCI ESG Ratings, and Sustainalytics risk assessments.

Table 5. ESG in Practice: Operational and Strategic Applications

Source: Author’s adaptation from corporate ESG strategy disclosures (2020–2023) and academic literature on ESG implementation.

This table outlines how multinational corporations have operationalised Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles during the period 2020–2023. Examples include integrating ESG frameworks into annual reporting aligned with the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), and Global Reporting Initiative (GRI); linking executive compensation to ESG Key Performance Indicators (KPIs); embedding ESG into research and development through green innovation and circular economy initiatives; fostering stakeholder engagement through investor briefings and community programmes; and leveraging external ESG ratings from MSCI and Sustainalytics to influence capital access.

Note: ESG = Environmental, Social, and Governance; TCFD = Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures; SASB = Sustainability Accounting Standards Board; GRI = Global Reporting Initiative; KPI = Key Performance Indicator; MSCI = Morgan Stanley Capital International ESG Ratings.

Source: Author’s adaptation from corporate ESG strategy disclosures (2020–2023) and academic literature on ESG implementation.

3.5 Trustworthiness

Credibility was ensured through data triangulation across multiple independent sources. Dependability was supported by maintaining a transparent audit trail of coding decisions. Transferability is addressed by providing detailed contextual descriptions of each case, enabling readers to assess relevance to other emerging markets. Confirmability was strengthened by grounding all interpretations in verifiable secondary data.

4. Results

Result 1: ESG leadership and governance transparency

Unilever’s superior performance in governance and stakeholder engagement aligns with Institutional Theory’s coercive and normative pressures — the firm’s global operations are shaped by stringent EU regulations and high ESG literacy among consumers, which influence local market practices even in low-enforcement contexts like Lebanon (Amel-Zadeh & Serafeim, 2018). This suggests that strong home-country institutional environments can exert a “norm diffusion” effect across subsidiaries.

Result 2: Environmental prioritization in manufacturing

P&G’s notable achievements in waste and emissions reduction mirror the environmental emphasis observed in manufacturing-sector sustainability studies (Aspiati & Damau, 2024). However, without comparable advances in social and governance domains, its approach risks falling into “selective ESG” practices — addressing easier-to-measure environmental metrics while sidelining more complex governance reforms.

Result 3: Cautious integration in regulated sectors

Johnson & Johnson’s incremental ESG adoption reflects Stakeholder Theory’s dependence on salience — where the most influential stakeholders (e.g., healthcare regulators, global investors) are not applying significant ESG-specific pressure in Lebanon. This underlines the theory’s limitation in fragile contexts, where stakeholder influence is often mediated by weak institutional frameworks.

Result 4: Lebanon-specific constraints and opportunities

The Lebanese ESG landscape is characterized by institutional voids (Pündrich et al., 2022), which reduce coercive pressures but create space for adaptive strategies. Opportunities such as diaspora engagement and regional partnerships represent non-traditional stakeholder channels capable of compensating for formal enforcement gaps. This hybrid pathway confirms that ESG norms can be locally reconfigured without losing legitimacy.

5. Discussion

The findings contribute to Institutional Theory by demonstrating that in fragile markets, global ESG norms are not simply transplanted; they are selectively hybridised to align with local governance capacities. Unilever’s transfer of global governance standards into Lebanon supports the concept of “normative spillover,” while P&G’s environmental focus illustrates the adaptive filtering of global ESG agendas based on feasibility and local priorities.

For Stakeholder Theory, this research extends the model by showing that in the absence of strong regulatory or consumer advocacy, other actors — notably diaspora communities, international NGOs, and regional networks — can function as substitute stakeholders. This expands the theory’s applicability to markets where formal salience mechanisms (power, legitimacy, urgency) are weak or absent.

Finally, this study challenges the implicit assumption in ESG literature that integration naturally follows corporate global commitments. Instead, our results reveal a two-speed adaptation: environmental practices can be rapidly deployed due to clearer metrics and tangible outcomes, whereas governance reforms require deeper institutional alignment and stakeholder mobilisation.

6.1 Theoretical Contribution

This study is the first comparative analysis to examine the integration of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) practices across Procter & Gamble, Unilever, and Johnson & Johnson in the Lebanese market, using both Institutional Theory and Stakeholder Theory as analytical lenses. By situating the analysis in a fragile institutional environment, the study extends existing theoretical frameworks by demonstrating how global CSR–ESG models are selectively adapted in response to institutional voids, stakeholder salience shifts, and local legitimacy pressures. This context-specific application reveals new dynamics in how multinational corporations operationalise ESG commitments under weak regulatory enforcement, contributing to the literature on theory adaptation in emerging markets.

6.2 Practical Contribution

The findings offer a Lebanon-specific CSR–ESG integration framework that can serve as a strategic guide for multinational corporations operating in fragile or transitional economies. By detailing the operational, governance, and environmental strategies of three industry leaders, the study provides actionable insights for aligning global sustainability commitments with local market realities. Beyond Lebanon, this framework is transferable to other emerging markets facing similar institutional constraints, enabling policymakers, managers, and investors to better calibrate sustainability strategies for maximum impact.

Strategic Steps for Transitioning from CSR to ESG in Lebanon

Building on this study’s findings, the transition from Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) to a fully integrated Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) framework in Lebanon requires a strategic, context-specific approach. First, increasing corporate awareness and capacity on the measurable benefits of ESG—beyond traditional CSR—will strengthen organizational commitment. Second, establishing clear and enforceable ESG-aligned regulatory frameworks will provide the necessary institutional foundation for compliance. Third, embedding strong governance mechanisms will enhance transparency, accountability, and ethical conduct. Fourth, adopting standardized ESG reporting, aligned with global benchmarks, will enable stakeholders to reliably assess sustainability performance. Fifth, incentivizing ESG-aligned investments will channel capital towards sustainable business models. Sixth, fostering public–private collaboration will accelerate ESG integration into national economic strategies. Finally, implementing robust monitoring and evaluation systems will ensure measurable progress and continuous improvement. These steps, grounded in the comparative insights from P&G, Unilever, and Johnson & Johnson, offer a pathway for Lebanon to evolve from CSR rhetoric to ESG-driven practice, aligning with both global standards and local realities.

Conclusion

This research highlights the critical need for Lebanon to transition from traditional Corporate

Social Responsibility (CSR) practices to a more comprehensive Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) framework. Given Lebanon’s distinct economic, social, and regulatory challenges, this shift requires a tailored and strategic approach. By enhancing corporate awareness, updating regulatory frameworks, strengthening governance, promoting transparent ESG reporting, incentivizing responsible investments, and fostering collaboration between government and the private sector, Lebanon can successfully integrate ESG principles into its business environment. Moreover, establishing robust monitoring and evaluation systems will ensure that progress is measured and sustained over time. This study offers a Lebanon-specific ESG strategy that fills existing gaps in both academic literature and practical application. It provides actionable steps that multinational corporations and local companies can adopt to improve sustainability and corporate accountability. Ultimately, embracing ESG will enable Lebanon to better address environmental and social issues while meeting global standards, contributing to long-term sustainable development in a complex regional context.

Limitations and Ethical Considerations

While relying on publicly available ESG data ensures standardization and verifiability, it may also reflect selective disclosure and varying reporting quality. The focus on three multinational corporations limits the transferability of findings to SMEs or locally owned firms. Lebanon’s unique socio-political context, while offering valuable insight into ESG adaptation in fragile markets, may not fully represent other emerging economies. These limitations open avenues for future research to incorporate primary data, expand sectoral scope, and develop locally tailored ESG assessment tools.

Future research

Future research could build on these findings by incorporating field-based interviews with corporate managers, regulators, and civil society actors in emerging markets to validate and deepen the comparative insights presented here. Expanding the sample to include SMEs and diverse industry sectors would offer a broader understanding of ESG implementation challenges. Further investigation into the social and governance dimensions of ESG, and their interplay with environmental strategies, is particularly warranted in contexts with weak institutional oversight. Developing culturally and regionally sensitive ESG assessment tools could enhance measurement precision, while examining the role of consumer awareness and investor activism could reveal additional drivers of ESG transformation in developing economies.

References:

• Amel-Zadeh, A., & Serafeim, G. (2018). Why and how investors use ESG information: Evidence from a global survey. Financial Analysts Journal, 74(3), 87–103. https://doi.org/10.2469/faj.v74.n3.2 Taylor & Francis Online
• Aspiati, A. A., & Damau, U. O. (2024). Evaluation of corporate sustainability performance through the integration of ESG and Balanced Scorecard in manufacturing companies in Indonesia. West Science Accounting and Finance, 2(2), 321–328. https://doi.org/10.58812/wsaf.v2i02.1096 westscience-press.com+1
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Taylor & Francis Online
• Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G ResearchGate
• Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G
• Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G
• Cezarino, L. O., Liboni, L. B., & Hunter, T. (2022). Corporate social responsibility in emerging markets: Opportunities and challenges for sustainability integration. Journal of Cleaner Production, 362, 132224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132224 ResearchGate
• Chen, K.-S., Lin, S.-T., & Chuang, C.-J. (2025). ESG strategies and sustainable performance in multinational enterprises. Sustainability, 17(2), 751. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020751 MDPI+1
• El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Wang, H., & Kwok, C. C. Y. (2021). Corporate social responsibility in emerging market economies: Determinants, consequences, and future research directions. Emerging Markets Review, 46, 100758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ememar.2020.100758
• Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. New Society Publishers. Google Books
• Elkington, J. (2000). John Elkington, Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(2), 229–231. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006129603978
• Elkington, J. (2000). John Elkington, Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(2), 229–231. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006129603978
• Friede, G., Busch, T., & Bassen, A. (2015). ESG and financial performance: Aggregated evidence from more than 2,000 empirical studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5(4), 210–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2015.1118917 Taylor & Francis Online
• Friede, G., Busch, T., & Bassen, A. (2015). ESG and financial performance: Aggregated evidence from more than 2,000 empirical studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5(4), 210–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2015.1118917
• Friede, G., Busch, T., & Bassen, A. (2015). ESG and financial performance: Aggregated evidence from more than 2,000 empirical studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5(4), 210–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2015.1118917
• Jiang, L., Chang, Z., Yao, W., Huang, L., & Zhou, S. (2024). Transcend local for global: ESG as a legitimacy signal in the global expansion of emerging multinational enterprises. Finance Research Letters, 69, 106174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2024.106174 IDEAS/RePEc
• Kotsantonis, S., Pinney, C., & Serafeim, G. (2016). ESG integration in investment management: Myths and realities. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 28(2), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/jacf.12169 ResearchGate
• Kotsantonis, S., Pinney, C., & Serafeim, G. (2016). ESG integration in investment management: Myths and realities. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 28(2), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/jacf.12169
• Kotsantonis, S., Pinney, C., & Serafeim, G. (2016). ESG integration in investment management: Myths and realities. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 28(2), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/jacf.12169
• Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. Chelsea Green Publishing. Chelsea Green Publishing
• Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: A three-domain approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 503–530. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq200313435
• Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: A three-domain approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 503–530. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq200313435
• Visser, W. (2010). The age of responsibility: CSR 2.0 and the new DNA of business. Journal of Business Systems, Governance and Ethics, 5(3), 7–28. https://doi.org/10.15209/jbsge.v5i3.185
• Visser, W. (2010). The age of responsibility: CSR 2.0 and the new DNA of business. Journal of Business Systems, Governance and Ethics, 5(3), 7–28. https://doi.org/10.15209/jbsge.v5i3.185
• Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE