What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.

The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields (Chinese Translation)

textCurrently, companies spend a great deal of effort on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) disclosures. CSR disclosure relates to the provision of information on companies' environmental and social performance. From an economic perspective, companies might disclose this information to avoid or decrease potential political costs. We construct a CSR disclosure index based on the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines. Using content analysis, we analyze 130 listed German companies' CSR disclosures (470 firm-year observations) to investigate the determinants of these voluntary disclosure activities. Our results show that, consistent with the political cost theory, German companies' disclosures of all CSR issues are affected by their visibility, shareholder structure, and relationship with their US stakeholders. In addition, higher profitability is associated with more environmental disclosures. Finally, size and industry membership affect the amount of CSR disclosure.

Determinants of voluntary CSR disclosure: Empirical evidence from Germany

While a growing number of firms are being evaluated on environment, social and governance (ESG) criteria by sustainability rating agencies (SRAs), comparatively little is known about companies’ responses. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with companies operating in Italy, the present paper seeks to narrow this gap in current understanding by examining how firms react to ESG ratings, and the factors influencing their response. Unique to the literature, we show that firms may react very differently to being rated, with our analysis yielding a fourfold typology of corporate responses. The typology captures conformity and resistance to ratings across two dimensions of firm behaviour. We furthermore show that corporate responses depend on managers’ beliefs regarding the material benefits of adjusting to and scoring well on ESG ratings and their alignment with corporate strategy. In doing so, we challenge the idea that organisational ratings homogenise organisations and draw attention to the agency underlying corporate responses. Our findings also contribute to debates about the impact of ESG ratings, calling into question claims about their positive influence on companies’ sustainability performance. We conclude by discussing the wider empirical, theoretical and ethical implications of our paper.

How do companies respond to environmental, social and governance (ESG) ratings? Evidence from Italy

/pdf/how-do-companies-respond-to-environmental-social-and-477eyqmacc.pdf

How Do Companies Respond to Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) ratings? Evidence from Italy

The sustainable development of the global economy and society calls for the practice of the environmental, social and governance (ESG) principle. The ESG principle has been developed for 17 years following its formal proposal in 2004. Countries around the world continue to promote the coordinated development of the environment, society, and governance in accordance with the ESG principle. In order to review and summarize ESG research, this study takes the literature related to ESG research as the research object and presents the cooperation status, hot spots, and trends of ESG research with the help of the literature analysis tool CiteSpace. On the basis of quantitative analysis results, this study presents an examination and comprehensive summary of progress in the research into ESG combined with a systematic literature review. This includes the theoretical basis of ESG research, the interaction between the dimensions of ESG, the impact of ESG on the economic consequences, the risk prevention role of ESG, and ESG measurement. Based on the systematic summary of research progress, this paper further refines the characteristics of ESG research, reveals the shortcomings of ESG research, and propose a focus for ESG research in the future in order to provide a reference for academic research and the practice of ESG.

ESG: Research Progress and Future Prospects

The concept of sustainable and responsible (SR) investments expresses that every investment should be based on the SR investor’s code of ethics. To a large extent the allocation of SR investments to more sustainable companies and ethical practices is based on the environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) scores provided by rating agencies. However, a thorough investigation of ESG scores is a neglected topic in the literature. This paper uses Thomson Reuters ASSET4 ESG ratings to analyze the influence of firm size, a company’s available resources for providing ESG data, and the availability of a company’s ESG data on the company’s sustainability performance. We find a significant positive correlation between the stated variables, which can be explained by organizational legitimacy. The results raise the question of whether the way the ESG score measures corporate sustainability gives an advantage to larger firms with more resources while not providing SR investors with the information needed to make decisions based on their beliefs. Due to our results, SR investors and scholars should reopen the discussion about: what sustainability rating agencies measure with ESG scores, what exactly needs to be measured, and if the sustainable finance community can reach their self-imposed objectives with this measurement.

Samuel Drempetic

Papers

The Influence of Firm Size on the ESG Score: Corporate Sustainability Ratings Under Review