Subject. The article discusses strategies of the largest corporations in the field of sustainable development and their compliance with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Objectives. The aim is to develop an end-user-oriented methodology that simplifies the analysis of companies' ESG progress and makes it accessible to a wide audience. Methods. The study rests on the analysis of public information from companies and includes five key criteria: mentioning of ESG principles, publication of sustainability reports, availability of measurable goals, their connection with sustainable development goals, and accessibility of the official website for users from Russia. To test the methodology, I used a sample of 250 largest companies from the Fortune Global 500 list representing various industries and regions. Results. The data obtained demonstrate that highly rated companies actively integrate the principles of sustainable development into their strategy, but their priorities are often unevenly distributed between environmental, social and managerial aspects. The scope of application the findings includes both consumer and corporate practices. Consumers get a simple and intuitive tool for making informed brand choices that match their values, and companies get the opportunity to improve their ESG strategies based on feedback. Conclusions. The results of the study confirm the universality of the proposed approach, which enables to assess the level of ESG commitment of companies regardless of their geographical location and economic sector. The methodology needs to be further developed, including the expansion of the list of criteria, involvement of experts, and consideration of the opinions of the target audience.
Keywords: sustainable development goals, ESG principles, company assessment, rating
References:
Zumente I., Lace N. ESG Rating – Necessity for the Investor or the Company? Sustainability, 2021, vol. 13, iss. 16. URL: Link
Larcker D., Pomorski L., Tayan B., Watts E. ESG Ratings: A Compass without Direction. Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University Working Paper Forthcoming, 2022, 16 p. URL: Link
Berg F., Kölbel J., Rigobon R. Aggregate Confusion: The Divergence of ESG Ratings. Review of Finance, 2022, vol. 26, iss. 6, pp. 1315–1344. URL: Link
Talatu M.B. How Rankings Superiorly Differ Than Ratings? International Journal of Business and Management Invention, 2016, vol. 5, iss. 6. URL: Link6/B05060910.pdf
Niloufar Fallah Shayan, Nasrin Mohabbati-Kalejahi, Mohammad Ali Zahed, Sepideh Alavi. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Sustainability, 2022, vol. 14, iss. 3. URL: Link
Xu Hong, Li Yukun, Lin Weifen, Wang Hui. ESG and customer stability: A perspective based on external and internal supervision and reputation mechanisms. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 2024, vol. 11, no. 981. URL: Link
Bazrafshan E. The role of ESG ranking in retail and institutional investors' attention and trading behavior. Finance Research Letters, 2023, vol. 58, part C, no. 104462. URL: Link
Baier P., Berninger M., Kiesel F. Environmental, social and governance reporting in annual reports: A textual analysis. Financial Markets, Institutions & Instruments, 2020, vol. 29, iss. 3, pp. 93–118. URL: Link
Seok Junhee, Kim Yanghee, Oh Yun Kyung. How ESG shapes firm value: The mediating role of customer satisfaction. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 2024, vol. 208, no. 123714. URL: Link
Maier G.L., Serena M., Julkovski D.J. Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) and Consumer Behavior: Trends Towards Conscious Consumption. Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental (RGSA), 2024, vol. 18, iss. 10.
Boufounou P., Moustairas I., Toudas K., Malesios C. ESGs and Customer Choice: Some Empirical Evidence. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 2023, vol. 3, pp. 1841–1874. URL: Link
