Are we doing the same? A worldwide analysis of business commitment to the SDGs

IF 1.6 Q4 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Sónia Monteiro, Víctor Amor‐Esteban, Kátia Lemos, Verónica Ribeiro
{"title":"Are we doing the same? A worldwide analysis of business commitment to the SDGs","authors":"Sónia Monteiro, Víctor Amor‐Esteban, Kátia Lemos, Verónica Ribeiro","doi":"10.3934/environsci.2023025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The COVID-19 pandemic has set back progress toward the 2030 Agenda. This raises concerns about the ability to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as outlined in this global action plan. The responsibility to act to protect the planet, eradicate poverty and improve the current and future situations of people around the world requires the commitment of all actors, especially the public and private sectors. The objective of this paper is twofold. First, it aims to demonstrate the level of business commitment to the 2030 Agenda at a global level in a post-COVID period (2020–2021). Second, it aims to analyse whether this commitment, in general, and for each of the SDGs, is determined by the institutional context in which companies operate, as associated with the regulatory frameworks and cultural values of the different continents and countries (coercive and normative isomorphism). Based on a sample of the world's leading listed companies, i.e. 8,201 observations for the period of 2020–2021, the multivariate statistical technique HJ-biplot was applied to analyse whether business commitment to the 2030 Agenda is determined by the institutional context of the companies. The results show significant differences in the level of business commitment to sustainable development across regions and countries, as well as in the prioritisation of the SDGs. Countries in Asia (the Philippines) and Europe (Spain and Portugal) stand out as leaders, with the highest levels of SDG commitment. The USA and Qatar show the lowest engagement in business contribution to the SDGs. SDG 8, SDG 13 and SDG 12 appear as the top three priorities for companies in all countries. The results show that, in countries characterised by collectivism and feminism and with strong legal systems (civil law countries), companies are under greater pressure to adopt sustainable practices, which enables countries to improve their commitment to the SDGs.","PeriodicalId":45143,"journal":{"name":"AIMS Environmental Science","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AIMS Environmental Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3934/environsci.2023025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has set back progress toward the 2030 Agenda. This raises concerns about the ability to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as outlined in this global action plan. The responsibility to act to protect the planet, eradicate poverty and improve the current and future situations of people around the world requires the commitment of all actors, especially the public and private sectors. The objective of this paper is twofold. First, it aims to demonstrate the level of business commitment to the 2030 Agenda at a global level in a post-COVID period (2020–2021). Second, it aims to analyse whether this commitment, in general, and for each of the SDGs, is determined by the institutional context in which companies operate, as associated with the regulatory frameworks and cultural values of the different continents and countries (coercive and normative isomorphism). Based on a sample of the world's leading listed companies, i.e. 8,201 observations for the period of 2020–2021, the multivariate statistical technique HJ-biplot was applied to analyse whether business commitment to the 2030 Agenda is determined by the institutional context of the companies. The results show significant differences in the level of business commitment to sustainable development across regions and countries, as well as in the prioritisation of the SDGs. Countries in Asia (the Philippines) and Europe (Spain and Portugal) stand out as leaders, with the highest levels of SDG commitment. The USA and Qatar show the lowest engagement in business contribution to the SDGs. SDG 8, SDG 13 and SDG 12 appear as the top three priorities for companies in all countries. The results show that, in countries characterised by collectivism and feminism and with strong legal systems (civil law countries), companies are under greater pressure to adopt sustainable practices, which enables countries to improve their commitment to the SDGs.
我们也在做同样的事情吗?对企业对可持续发展目标承诺的全球分析
2019冠状病毒病大流行阻碍了实现2030年议程的进展。这引发了人们对实现本全球行动计划中概述的可持续发展目标(sdg)能力的担忧。采取行动保护地球、消除贫困和改善世界各地人民当前和未来状况的责任要求所有行为体,特别是公共和私营部门作出承诺。本文的目的是双重的。首先,它旨在展示企业在后疫情时期(2020-2021年)在全球层面对2030年议程的承诺水平。其次,它旨在分析这种承诺,一般来说,对于每个可持续发展目标,是否由公司运营的制度背景决定,与不同大陆和国家的监管框架和文化价值观有关(强制性和规范性同构)。以2020-2021年8201家全球领先上市公司为样本,运用多元统计技术HJ-biplot分析企业对2030年可持续发展议程的承诺是否受到企业制度背景的影响。调查结果显示,不同地区和国家的企业对可持续发展的承诺水平以及可持续发展目标的优先顺序存在显著差异。亚洲国家(菲律宾)和欧洲国家(西班牙和葡萄牙)作为领先者脱颖而出,对可持续发展目标的承诺水平最高。美国和卡塔尔在企业对可持续发展目标的贡献方面参与度最低。可持续发展目标8、可持续发展目标13和可持续发展目标12是所有国家企业的三大优先事项。结果表明,在以集体主义和女权主义为特征的国家,以及拥有强大法律体系的国家(大陆法系国家),企业在采用可持续实践方面面临更大的压力,这使各国能够改善其对可持续发展目标的承诺。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
AIMS Environmental Science
AIMS Environmental Science ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
5 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信