Journal:Quality and environmental management systems as business tools to enhance ESG performance: A cross-regional empirical study

From LIMSWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Full article title Quality and environmental management systems as business tools to enhance ESG performance: A cross-regional empirical study
Journal Environment, Development and Sustainability
Author(s) Ronalter, Louis M.; Bernardo, Merce; Romaní, Javier M.
Author affiliation(s) Universitat de Barcelona
Primary contact Email: ronalterlouis at gmail com
Year published 2022
Article # 660
DOI 10.1007/s10668-022-02425-0
ISSN 1573-2975
Distribution license Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Download (PDF)


The growing societal and political focus on sustainability at the global level is pressuring companies to enhance their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance to satisfy respective stakeholder needs and ensure sustained business success. With a data sample of 4,292 companies from Europe, East Asia, and North America, this work aims to prove through a cross-regional empirical study that quality management systems (QMSs) and environmental management systems (EMSs) represent powerful business tools to achieve this enhanced ESG performance. Descriptive and cluster analyses reveal that firms with QMSs and/or EMSs accomplish statistically significant higher ESG scores than companies without such management systems. Furthermore, the results indicate that operating both types of management systems simultaneously increases performance in the environmental and social pillar even further, while the governance dimension appears to be affected mainly by the adoption of EMSs alone.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, such large-scale, cross-regional analysis of the impact of QMSs and EMSs on ESG performance is absent from the literature, thus paving the way for pioneering academic research. The study is grounded in stakeholder theory and demonstrates to managers how the implementation of management systems can assist in successfully translating stakeholders’ sustainability concerns into actionable business practice. Furthermore, it allows decision-makers to gain insight into the strengths and weaknesses of QMSs and EMSs for tackling specific ESG issues and highlights the performance advantages of combining both management systems. The work also depicts to policymakers how corporate sustainable performance (CSP) can be improved by fostering management systems adoption, thereby emphasizing the importance of supporting and facilitating the diffusion of these systems.

Keywords: corporate sustainable performance, environmental management systems, ESG performance, quality management systems, sustainability


A significant number of companies worldwide rely on management systems[1] to improve corporate operations[2][3] and address stakeholders’ needs systematically.[4] Given that achieving “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”[5] nowadays represents a normative concept[6], corporate executives are under increasing pressure to fulfil one particular stakeholder demand: making their companies more sustainable.[7][8][9][10]

For example, consumer attitudes towards sustainable products and services are increasingly positive[11][12] and investors are placing increasing value on data on sustainability-related issues for financial commitments.[13][14][15] In this context, such stakeholders often consider firms’ environmental, social, and governance (ESG) scores in their decision-making process[16][17] and, in return, companies that apply ESG practices can improve stakeholders’ trust by accumulating social capital and strengthening attachment to the firm.[18] Scholars also devote a great deal of attention to the ESG concept[19], which has emerged as a measure of companies’ corporate sustainable performance (CSP).[16][17][20]

When it comes to researching CSP in relation to management systems, however, academics focus more on investigating the benefits related to specific issues such as reduced emissions[21] and sustainable supply chains[22], as opposed to connecting management systems with the broader ESG concept as a framework for the various CSP demands of stakeholders. Few studies consider ESG ratings alongside management systems. Broadstock et al.[23], for example, state that to achieve higher scores in the environmental pillar, companies must perform well in environmental management systems (EMS) certification. Furthermore, Schmid et al.[24] conclude that ESG themes may be anchored in quality management systems (QMSs), and Chams et al.[25] deduce that firms with QMSs are less reliant on financial capital to improve ESG ratings. Nevertheless, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there is a shortage of academic studies that connect management systems to ESG performance and empirically analyze their relationship, which is evidenced by the lack of corresponding search results in databases like Web of Science and Scopus.

Such studies would provide valuable insight into the strengths and weaknesses of individual management systems in terms of meeting specific environmental, social, and/or governance needs. This knowledge would make it possible to draw managerial conclusions regarding which management systems to implement and combine to satisfy certain stakeholder CSP demands. Thus, the aim of this work is to start filling this research gap by empirically proving that QMSs and EMSs, which are the most widely adopted management systems on a global level[1], represent powerful business tools to achieve enhanced ESG performance, by answering the following three research questions (RQs):

  • RQ1: Do companies that operate QMSs and/or EMSs achieve statistically significant higher ESG scores than firms without such management systems?
  • RQ2: Which ESG issues are positively impacted by the implementation of QMSs and/or EMSs?
  • RQ3: Do companies that apply both QMSs and EMSs simultaneously achieve higher ESG performance than firms that operate with only one of these management systems?

To answer these RQs, this study presents a comprehensive exploratory literature review and both descriptive and cluster analyses of ESG data from 2019 for 4,292 companies spread among the three leading global economic areas: Europe, East Asia, and North America. Refinitiv Eikon is used as the data source. The descriptive analysis describes the fundamental characteristics of the data and measures central tendencies among the sample groups with or without management systems.[26] The cluster analysis gradually classifies the sample based on similarities[27][28], thus allowing patterns to be defined between companies with QMSs, EMSs, or no such management systems.

This paper contributes to the academic literature by directly connecting QMSs and EMSs to the ESG concept and by empirically proving at a global level that both management system types serve as powerful business tools for enhancing ESG scores. The study helps corporate executives to understand the ESG-related strengths inherent in QMSs and EMSs and, in addition, highlights how combining these management systems can impact a corporation’s sustainable performance in different ESG categories. Furthermore, the results give policymakers an insight into the positive relationship between management systems and CSP, as well as the regional and industrial differences in ESG scores, thus emphasizing the importance of pushing forward with the international standardization of best practices in management as well as their global diffusion.

The paper continues in six sections. The next section provides extensive background information on management systems and ESG ratings. Then the data sampling process and methodologies applied are explained, followed by the findings. The paper closes with discussion and some final conclusions.

Literature review

Stakeholder theory

In accordance with the increasing stakeholder focus on CSP, this paper follows the reasoning that companies must not only fulfil obligations to their shareholders in order to be successful, but that the interests of multiple parties with stakes in the social and financial performance of the firm must be taken into account.[29] This aligns with the concept of management systems, which are directed at satisfying specific stakeholder needs (as outlined in the management system's underlying standards), as well as the ESG concept, which is linked to numerous stakeholders, including society, suppliers, employees, and shareholders.[18][30] Thus, this study is grounded in stakeholder theory, which goes beyond simply maximizing the wealth of owners to acknowledging “any group or individual who is affected by or can affect the achievement of an organization’s objectives”[31], while addressing “morals and values explicitly as a central feature of managing organizations.”[32]

In general, Freeman’s[31] stakeholder theory offers a pragmatic approach to a strategy that urges firms to be aware of their relationships with all stakeholders in order to become more successful.[33][34] At the moment, the stakeholder theory appears to be the prevailing theory in CSP-related research.[35] Thereby, it should be acknowledged that (i) different stakeholders influence organizations in different ways; (ii) some stakeholders have more influence over organizations than others; (iii) not all stakeholders might be regarded as legitimate stakeholders by organizations—in this regard, stakeholder theory is closely related to legitimacy and institutional theories “in the sense that only those with legitimate claims and institutional identification can be considered stakeholders”[35]—and (iv) existing organization/stakeholder relations are not static but can change.[36]

Developments in relationships in any direction might be induced by changes in material interests of either side, emergence of contingent factors, changes in the sets of ideas held by stakeholders and/or organizations, or institutional support changes.[36] Nowadays, we witness increasing contingent factors such as those related to global climate change or pandemics, causing more and more stakeholder groups, including shareholders, to adjust their material interests and to value sustainable development as an increasingly important aspect. In alignment, the institutional support for CSP increases as visible in policy making and media coverage. Hence, to ensure sustained business success, this study argues that companies must be aware of the environmental, social, and governance demands of stakeholders and address them accordingly by using suitable business tools. Therefore, the following exploratory literature review on management systems and ESG ratings emphasizes the stakeholder focus inherent in both concepts.

Management systems

Management systems are a set of procedures to be followed to achieve stakeholder satisfaction concerning specific demands, thus a “process of systemizing how things are done.”[37] They are implemented to handle stakeholders’ needs systematically in both internal and external organizational contexts[4][38] and are aimed at the continuous improvement of operations and procedures.[2][3] Management systems can be classified as quality, environmental, or occupational health and safety (OHS) systems, among others, depending on their objective.[39] The core elements of management systems are often defined in management system standards (MSSs), and compliant companies can receive certification if the standard allows it.[40][41] These MSSs are developed and published by national and international bodies, the most famous being the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)[42]; its ISO 9001 for QMSs and ISO 14001 for EMSs are the most commonly implemented and certified MSSs worldwide.[1]

In general, a QMS is the means by which quality management practices—including quality planning, quality control, quality assurance, and quality improvement—are turned into an integral part of an organization that directly affects the way it conducts business.[43] An EMS, on the other hand, seeks to make organizations both more competitive and more environmentally responsible by adapting techniques aimed at reducing environmental impacts such as waste reduction and process/product redesign.[44] The implementation of such management systems results in various benefits.[45][46][47] For example, QMSs are positively correlated with business performance, as companies improve the efficiency of their processes, provide their customers with added value, enhance customer satisfaction and, ultimately, generate more revenue.[47][48][49] Similarly, EMSs positively impact the performance of firms due to savings in resource input and energy consumption, increased efficiency, and better profitability.[47][50] However, the adoption benefits depend on the individual circumstances of firms. Operating management systems alongside comparable practices, for example, might be less beneficial for companies’ financial performance due to the redundancy of different processes aimed at similar goals related to stakeholder satisfaction.[51]

ESG ratings and scores

ESG ratings are company assessments based on an evaluation of environmental, social, and governance matters whose individual weightings result in an overall score.[52] They are provided by specialized rating agencies, whose expertise makes them a key reference point for firms, financial markets, and scholars regarding CSP data[53] and which emerged in response to an increased demand for social and environmental information.[54] Rating agencies typically use their own research methodologies[16] , which are based mainly on publicly available information, third-party research, and corporate reports.[55][56]

Applying ESG practices is generally aligned with stakeholder theory[34], as the concept is linked to numerous stakeholders.[18][30] Furthermore, ESG scores play a crucial role “in helping stakeholders apprehend, evaluate, and manage the increasingly complex, multi-faceted nature of business ethics and sustainability.”[52] They serve as a standard for comparison and set benchmarks for further improvement.[17][57] Managing ESG issues responsibly increases companies’ integrity within society and stakeholders’ trust, thus influencing the economic performance of firms.[58] Therefore, companies with high ESG ratings might enjoy better market and financial performance[59][60][61], although there is no univocal consensus on how that should be approached.[62][63][64] Due to increasing public awareness of sustainability issues and the corresponding corporate acknowledgement, the number of firms disclosing ESG data is rapidly increasing.[65]

However, ESG ratings also face criticism. As the concept has no fixed boundaries, the validity of ratings is questioned, since the various rating agencies view the ESG pillars differently and, moreover, use different weighting strategies to compile the final scores.[66][67] Another set of criticism concerns the quality of the data underlying the scores.[52][55] To mitigate these key concerns related to ESG ratings, this study utilizes data from Thomson Reuters, whose ESG database is one of the market leaders and is both used and accepted by fellow scholars.[10][17][68][69]

ESG-related benefits of management system implementation

To justify researching the role of QMSs and EMSs as business tools to enhance ESG ratings, this work clusters their adoption benefits by ESG pillar (see Table 1) and, subsequently, derives corresponding hypotheses about their impact on ESG performance.

Table 1. Benefits of QMS and EMS Adoption sorted by ESG Dimensions (source: own elaboration based on Eikon database)
ESG dimension ESG issues QMS EMS References
Environmental Resource use - Waste reduction - Enhanced use of resources
- Reduction in resource use
- Supports implementation of environmental management practices regarding green product design, procurement, production, logistics, and packaging
Tan (2005)[70]; Schylander and Martinuzzi (2007)[71]; Gavronski et al. (2008)[72]; Comoglio and Botta (2012)[73]; Wong et al. (2020)[74]; Zimon et al. (2021)[22]
Emissions - Reduced emissions, water contamination, and air pollution
- Reduced risk of environmental accidents
- Improved environmental performance
Potoski and Prakash (2005)[75]; Tan (2005)[70]; Russo (2009)[21]; Comoglio and Botta (2012)[73]; Boiral et al. (2018)[76]; Shi et al. (2019)[77]; Bravi et al. (2020)[78]
Environmental innovation - Improved innovation capability for supply chains
- Positive impact on environmental process innovations
- Increased environmental innovation capabilities
- Enhanced problem-solving regarding technologies and procedures
- Greening of supply chain
Ann et al. (2006)[79]; Ziegler (2015)[80]; Manders et al. (2016)[81]; Boiral et al. (2018)[76]; Montobbio and Solito (2018)[82]; Papagiannakis et al. (2019)[83]; M. Bu, Liu, et al. (2020)[27], Bu, Qiao, et al. (2020)[28]; Erauskin‐Tolosa et al. (2020)[84]
Social Workforce - Improved teamwork
- Better commitment
- Enhanced internal communication
- Improved employee motivation and involvement
- Increased work satisfaction
- Reduced incidents, rejections, and complaints
- Enhanced risk prevention and improved safety procedures
- Enhanced internal communication
- Improved employee motivation
- Improved work culture
- Increased employee discretion
Gotzamani and Tsiotras (2002)[85]; Arauz and Suzuki (2004)[86]; Casadesús and Karapetrovic (2005)[87]; Tan (2005)[70]; Link and Naveh (2006)[88]; Zaramdini (2007)[49]; Gavronski et al. (2008)[72]; Sampaio et al. (2009)[3]; Tarí et al. (2012)[47]; Shi et al. (2019)[77]; Bravi et al. (2020)[78]
Human rights - Increased compliance with legal and regulatory requirements Morrow and Rondinelli (2002)[89]; Ratiu and Mortan (2014)[90]; Boiral et al. (2018)[76]; Pesce et al. (2018)[91]; Bravi et al. (2020)[78]
Community - Improved relationship with suppliers
- Helps supplier selection
- Improved relationships with authorities and other stakeholders
- Improved relationship with suppliers
- Improved relationships with authorities and other stakeholders
- Improved relations with communities
- Enhanced corporate image
- Increased Transparency
Magd and Curry (2003)[92]; Pan (2003)[93]; Casadesús and Karapetrovic (2005)[87]; Tan (2005)[70]; Zeng et al. (2005)[94]; Schylander and Martinuzzi (2007)[71]; Gavronski et al. (2008)[72]; Tarí et al. (2012)[47]; Bernardo et al. (2015)[46]; Boiral et al. (2018)[76]
Product responsibility - Improved customer satisfaction
- Improved customer communication
- Improved customer relationships
- Improved product/service quality
- Improved customer satisfaction
- Improved customer communication
- Improved customer relationships
- Improved product/service quality
Gotzamani and Tsiotras (2002)[85]; Magd and Curry (2003)[92]; Melnyk et al. (2003)[95]; Pan (2003)[93]; Casadesús and Karapetrovic (2005)[87]; Zaramdini (2007)[49]; Padma et al. (2008)[96]; Sampaio et al. (2009)[3]; Tarí et al. (2012)[47]; Siva et al. (2016)[97]
Governance Management - Enhanced internal organization and operations
- Increased commitment in moving towards best quality practices
- Improved employee-management relationships
- Increased top management commitment
- Adherence of EMS MSSs to best corporate governance principles
- Enhanced internal organization
- Increased top management and awareness for environmental issues
- Increased employee awareness for environmental issues
Gotzamani and Tsiotras (2002)[85]; Arauz and Suzuki (2004)[86]; Schylander and Martinuzzi (2007)[71]; Sampaio et al. (2009)[3]; Comoglio and Botta (2012)[73]; Tarí et al. (2012)[47]; Boiral et al. (2018)[76]; Grotta et al. (2020)[98]
CSR strategy - Provides (infra)structural framework to adopt and develop CSR policy, strategy, and activities - Improved CSR activities
- Statistically significant relationship between incorporating CSR and incorporating EMS
Castka and Balzarova (2008)[99]; Benavides-Velasco et al. (2014)[100]; Frolova and Lapina (2015)[101]; Ikram et al. (2019)[102]; Dubravská et al. (2020)[103]

Benefits regarding the environmental pillar

EMS adoption leads to various environmental-related benefits, such as decreased and more efficient use of resources[70][72], and facilitates the implementation of environmental management practices regarding green product design, procurement, production, logistics, and packaging.[74] Furthermore, EMSs enable companies to reduce emissions[21][75] and the risk of environmental accidents.[78] Environmental innovation capabilities[27][28][82] and enhanced problem solving with regard to technologies and procedures might also evolve.[79] With regard to QMSs, these can reduce waste[22] and, furthermore, positively impact environmental process innovations[80], especially for supply chain management[77], a crucial organizational element of CSP. In addition, quality management “can help support necessary stakeholder management in sustainable development.”[97] In conclusion, the following hypotheses are derived:

  • H1: Companies operating with QMSs achieve higher performance scores in the environmental pillar than firms without QMSs.
  • H2: Companies operating with EMSs achieve higher performance scores in the environmental pillar than firms without EMSs.

Benefits regarding the social pillar

Both management systems present several positive effects when it comes to workforce, community, and product responsibility. Regarding human rights, no specific academic research was discovered. However, EMS implementation increases legal and regulatory compliance[78], which implies a certain level of conformity with basic human rights. Important benefits related to the workforce are increased employee motivation[49][72] and better internal communication.[3][70] With respect to community, both management systems result in improved relationships with suppliers and other key stakeholders, as stated in the standards[46][87][94], among others. Regarding product responsibility, management systems increase customer satisfaction, communication, and relationships, as well as product and service quality.[47][85][87] Hence, the hypotheses related to this pillar are as follows:

  • H3: Companies operating with QMSs achieve higher performance scores in the social pillar than firms without QMSs.
  • H4: Companies operating with EMSs achieve higher performance scores in the social pillar than firms without EMSs.

Benefits regarding the governance pillar

Positive links have been revealed between management systems and the management of organizations. QMSs enhance internal organization and operations[3], increase the commitment of management to best quality practices[86], and improve management-employee relationships.[85] EMSs result in better awareness of environmental issues among both management and employees, as well as enhanced internal organization.[71][85] Regarding corporations’ effectiveness with respect to the equal treatment of shareholders, no academic studies revealing specific relationships were found. Regarding CSR strategies, EMS adoption leads to improved CSR activities[102] (as incorporating CSR principles is closely related to EMS principles[103]), and QMSs provide a structural framework that facilitates the adoption of CSR policies, strategies, and activities.[101] Thus, hypotheses five and six are deduced:

  • H5: Companies operating with QMSs achieve higher performance scores in the governance pillar than firms without QMSs.
  • H6: Companies operating with EMSs achieve higher performance scores in the governance pillar than firms without EMSs.

Benefits of operating both management systems simultaneously

Table 1 reveals that QMSs and EMSs lead to distinct CSP benefits. Consequently, operating both management systems simultaneously should enable firms to cover an even broader range of ESG issues. Moreover, having EMSs alongside QMSs could give rise to synergy effects[22][104], and both management systems together could lead to stronger business performance.[105] In addition, the benefits of integrating the management systems[46] might also play a pivotal role. Although the sample used in this study does not reveal information regarding the integration level, integration benefits should be taken into account, as most organizations with multiple management systems do actually integrate them.[106] ESG-related integration advantages include the improved adoption of cleaner production technologies[107], greater motivation among staff[108], better partnerships with key stakeholders[109], and improvements in the organizational culture.[110] Therefore, the literature makes it possible to hypothesize the following:

  • H7: Companies operating with both QMSs and EMSs achieve higher performance scores in the environmental pillar than firms with only either QMSs or EMSs.
  • H8: Companies operating with both QMSs and EMSs achieve higher performance scores in the social pillar than firms with only either QMSs or EMSs.
  • H9: Companies operating with both QMSs and EMSs achieve higher performance scores in the governance pillar than firms with only either QMSs or EMSs.

Figure 1 offers a graphic summary of the nine hypotheses outlined in this section and reveals their connection to the RQs formulated in the introduction. The ESG variables displayed (V1 to V16), as well as the statistical methods used for testing the hypotheses, are further explained in the following section.

Fig1 Ronalter EnviroDevSust22 660.png

Figure 1. Hypotheses about QMSs and EMSs adoption on ESG performance scores (source: own elaboration)

Fig2 Ronalter EnviroDevSust22 660.png

Figure 2. Applied methodology (source: own elaboration)

Fig3 Ronalter EnviroDevSust22 660.png

Figure 3. Boxplots for the ESG overall score and the three pillar scores (source: own elaboration)


To test the hypotheses, ESG data from companies located in Europe (i.e., E.U., U.K., and European Free Trade Association [EFTA] states), East Asia (i.e., China, Japan, and four tiger states), and North America (i.e., U.S. and Canada) were retrieved and analyzed. The country clustering considers geographic regions with comparable economic and human development status, shared commercial relationships, and common regulatory environments.[111][112][113] The analyses consider the 19 variables listed in Table 2. Of those variables, 16 aim to measure ESG performance (V1 to V16) and three serve as control variables (CV1 to CV3), as empirical studies on both ESG ratings and management systems have shown that results are likely to be influenced by industrial sector[114][115], region[70][116], and company size.[55][74][86]

Table 2. Variables used in the analysis (source: adapted from Refinitiv [2020][117])
Code Variable ESG dimension Description
V1 ESG Score / Overall company score based on the self-reported information in the environmental, social, and corporate governance pillars
V2 ESG Combined Score / Overall company score ESG Controversies overlay
V3 ESG Controversies Score / Measures a company's exposure to ESG controversies and negative events reflected in global media
V4 Environment Pillar Score Environmental Measures a company's impact on living and non-living natural systems, including the air, land, and water, as well as complete ecosystem; reflects how well a company uses best management practices to avoid environmental risks and capitalize on environmental opportunities in order to generate long-term shareholder value
V5 Resource Use Score Environmental Reflects a company's performance and capacity to reduce the use of materials, energy, or water, and to find more eco-efficient solutions by improving supply chain management
V6 Emissions Score Environmental Measures a company's commitment and effectiveness towards reducing environmental emissions in production and operational processes
V7 Environmental Innovation Score Environmental Reflects a company's capacity to reduce the environmental costs and burdens for its customers, thereby creating new market opportunities through new environmental technologies and processes or eco-designed products
V8 Social Pillar Score Social Measures a company's capacity to generate trust and loyalty with its workforce, customers, and society, through its use of best management practices; a reflection of the company's reputation and the health of its license to operate, which are key factors in determining its ability to generate long-term shareholder value
V9 Workforce Score Social Measures a company's effectiveness towards job satisfaction, healthy and safe workplace, maintaining diversity and equal opportunities, and development opportunities for its workforce
V10 Human Rights Score Social Measures a company's effectiveness towards respecting the fundamental human rights conventions
V11 Community Score Social Measures the company's commitment towards being a good citizen, protecting public health and respecting business ethics
V12 Product Responsibility Score Social Reflects a company's capacity to produce quality goods and services integrating the customer's health and safety, integrity, and data privacy
V13 Governance Pillar Score Governance Measures a company's systems and processes, which ensure that its board members and executives act in the best interests of its long-term shareholders; reflects a company's capacity, through its use of best management practices, to direct and control its rights and responsibilities through the creation of incentives, as well as checks and balances in order to generate long-term shareholder value
V14 Management Score Governance Measures a company's commitment and effectiveness towards following best practice corporate governance principles
V15 Shareholders Score Governance Measures a company's effectiveness towards equal treatment of shareholders and the use of anti-takeover devices
V16 CSR Strategy Score Governance Reflects a company's practices to communicate that it integrates the economic (financial), social, and environmental dimensions into its day-to-day decision-making processes
CV1 Market Capitalization / Market capitalization of the company
CV2 Country of Headquarters / Country in which the company´s headquarters is located
CV3 Industry / Industry in which the company operates

Sampling process

The first step in the sampling process involves searching for reliable ESG data. Therefore, Thomson Reuters Eikon, also known as Refinitiv Eikon (formerly ASSET4), is used, as it offers one of the largest ESG databases with ratings for over 10,000 companies worldwide. Refinitiv Eikon calculates 10 ESG category scores, which evaluate the environmental (V5, V6, V7), social (V9, V10, V11, V12), and governance (V14, V15, V16) dimensions. The category scores are based on numerous data points and summarized in the respective pillar scores (V4, V8, V13), which together result in the overall score. (V1) In addition, the ESG combined score (V2) takes into account scandals relating to any of Refinitiv Eikon’s twenty-three ESG controversy topics (V3). All scores are expressed in values between 0 (worst) and 100 (best).[117]

The second step consists of retrieving the aforementioned data for companies headquartered in the regions of interest. Refinitiv Eikon allows users to filter by companies that use QMSs and EMS-certified organizations. The third step involves filtering these data for 2015 through to 2019 to ensure that the companies have been running their management systems for at least five consecutive years. This is done to ensure that the sample firms have accumulated experience of working with management systems to avoid distorting the ESG data with short-term influences that might occur straight after implementing management systems.[87][118] In addition, the filtering by time considers the renewal of certified management systems after a three-year period. To ensure data quality, the fourth step consists of removing all companies that lack information, i.e., that present no value for any of the 19 variables.

Sample description

The sampling process was performed on November 15, 2020, resulting in data on 4,292 companies, which are classified into the following four sample groups:

  • Group 1: Companies without a QMS or an EMS
  • Group 2: Companies with a QMS but no EMS
  • Group 3: Companies with an EMS but no QMS
  • Group 4: Companies with both a QMS and an EMS

As illustrated in Table 3, most companies in the sample have not been operating any QMS or EMS (74.5%) consecutively between 2015 and 2019. Firms operating both management systems represent the second largest group (17.4%), and corporations with either a QMS (2.9%) or an EMS (5.1%) constitute less than 10% of the sample.

Table 3. Sample clustered by control variables (source: own elaboration)
Control variable Total In % Group 1 In % Group 2 In % Group 3 In % Group 4 In %
Academic and educational services 17 0.4 16 0.5 0.0 1 0.5 0.0
Basic materials 259 6.0 109 3.4 7 5.6 23 10.4 120 16.0
Consumer cyclicals 654 15.2 511 16.0 16 12.9 36 16.3 91 12.2
Consumer non-cyclicals 247 5.8 146 4.6 18 14.5 12 5.4 71 9.5
Energy 200 4.7 147 4.6 10 8.1 4 1.8 39 5.2
Financials 1182 27.5 1097 34.3 9 7.3 57 25.8 19 2.5
Healthcare 474 11.0 395 12.3 19 15.3 9 4.1 51 6.8
Industrials 579 13.5 305 9.5 26 21.0 37 16.7 211 28.2
Technology 514 12.0 366 11.4 17 13.7 14 6.3 117 15.6
Telecommunications services 67 1.6 43 1.3 1 0.8 8 3.6 15 2.0
Utilities 99 2.3 64 2.0 1 0.8 20 9.0 14 1.9
Europe 1003 23.4 549 17.2 32 25.8 93 42.1 329 44.0
East Asia 978 22.8 599 18.7 21 16.9 83 37.6 275 36.8
North America 2311 53.8 2051 64.1 71 57.3 45 20.4 144 19.3
Market capitalization
Small 1328 30.9 1196 37.4 31 25.0 19 8.6 82 11.0
Medium 1544 36.0 1192 37.3 30 24.2 66 29.9 256 34.2
Large 1420 33.1 811 25.4 63 50.8 136 61.5 410 54.8
Total 4292 100.0 3199 74.5 124 2.9 221 5.1 748 17.4

Regarding sectors, most firms are engaged in finance (27.5%), consumer cyclicals (15.2%), industry (13.5%), technology (12.0%), or healthcare (11.0%). The geographical distribution shows that the majority of the companies is from North America (53.8%), while the number of European (23.4%) and East Asian (22.8%) enterprises is roughly equal. The percentage shares of the four sample groups per region reveal that, whereas a significant portion of the sample in Europe (45.3%) and East Asia (38.8%) runs management systems, companies in North America are much more likely to operate without them (88.7%). This is consistent with the fact that the 10 countries with the most ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 certifications are based predominantly in Europe and East Asia, while neither the U.S. nor Canada appear in the top 10 ranking.[1] Furthermore, the sample presents a well-distributed cross section of company sizes, which are measured by market capitalization.[119] Small (market capitalization < USD 1 billion), medium (< 5 billion) and large companies (> 5 billion) each make up about one third of the sample.

Data analysis

The sample is analyzed with IBM SPSS Statistics 25 and StataSE 16. First, a descriptive analysis is performed to describe the basic features and characteristics of the dataset.[26] This makes it possible to explain and validate the research findings and serves as a basis for further quantitative analysis, which is carried out in the framework of a cluster analysis. The cluster analysis is designed to produce a logical structure concerning ESG performance that is easy to read and interpret so that similarities can be analyzed.[27][28]

The descriptive analysis consists of four steps. First, the full sample is analyzed to describe the ESG performance of all four sample groups in comparison. Second, data normality is tested with the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and the Shapiro–Wilk test. As the sample does not present a normal distribution of data, the nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis test is performed in the third step to evaluate the statistical significance of differences. Moreover, the Dunn–Bonferroni post hoc test is conducted and Cohen’s d is calculated to determine the sample groups between which these statistically significant differences exist and to what extent. Fourth, the Kruskal–Wallis test, the Dunn–Bonferroni test, and Cohen’s d are performed and analyzed for the single control variables; each company size, each region, and each sector (except for the academic and educational services sector due to the small sample size). This is done to detect possible influences and potential biases of the control variables. The descriptive analysis is presented in the next section.

The cluster analysis considers the 10 ESG category scores and is conducted in three subsequent steps. First, the single-linkage method is applied to detect and exclude outliers that might distort the classification; furthermore, hierarchical methods are applied to produce a small number of clusters and distances are measured to evaluate similarities and dissimilarities. To obtain homogeneous groups with minimum variances, the Ward method is used. Such hierarchical clustering is the most widely applied methodology in cluster analysis.[27][28] This first step results in two clusters. Second, the Mann–Whitney U test is performed to verify the clustering after ensuring that the cluster analysis samples are also not normally distributed via the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and the Shapiro–Wilk test. Third, the clusters are analyzed. This cluster analysis is presented in the next section.

The prior Figure 2 summarizes these methodological steps, their application, and how they fit into the structure of the paper.


Descriptive analysis

Step 1: Descriptive analysis of the full sample

The descriptive analysis of the full sample is summarized in Table 4. As shown, Group 4 reveals the best performance as measured by the mean and median of the ESG score (V1) and the ESG combined score (V2), whereas Group 3 performs second best, Group 2 third best, and Group 1 exhibits the lowest values. With respect to the controversy score (V3), Group 1 presents the highest mean. However, this outperformance might be due to the fact that Group 1 has the highest percentage of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (74.7%), which are less likely than their bigger counterparts to feature in the global media. The environmental (V4) and social pillars (V8) show the same performance pattern as the overall score, while Group 3 performs best in the governance dimension (V13). The sample groups rank nearly the same for most ESG category scores as for the respective ESG pillar scores. The only exceptions are emissions (V3) and workforce (V9) matters, which are highest in Group 3. The overall score and pillar scores are illustrated in the prior Fig. 3 in the form of four box plots.

Table 4. Descriptive analysis for ESG performance variables by sample group (source: own elaboration)
Variable n Mean SD Minimum 25th Perc Median 75th Perc Maximum
Group 1
V1 3199 33.23 16.69 1.06 20.70 30.41 43.25 88.06
V2 3199 32.67 16.08 1.06 20.57 30.19 42.56 88.06
V3 3199 95.04 17.29 0.60 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
V4 3199 17.63 23.14 0.00 0.00 6.26 28.85 96.13
V5 3199 19.21 27.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.19 99.88
V6 3199 20.74 27.41 0.00 0.00 6.67 36.34 99.43
V7 3199 11.65 23.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.86 99.38
V8 3199 34.11 18.94 0.35 19.82 31.86 45.73 92.44
V9 3199 38.25 25.84 0.11 16.85 34.07 57.16 99.94
V10 3199 14.94 25.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.50 98.91
V11 3199 44.72 26.27 0.59 22.80 45.06 64.57 99.89
V12 3199 30.62 23.08 0.00 16.11 30.47 41.67 99.84
V13 3199 42.76 21.77 0.31 24.93 41.96 60.66 97.55
V14 3199 46.28 28.51 0.15 21.02 44.49 70.09 99.98
V15 3199 47.81 29.05 0.02 21.85 46.53 73.05 99.92
V16 3199 17.57 27.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.83 99.89
Group 2
V1 124 51.86 18.79 8.48 38.09 51.39 65.31 90.80
V2 124 49.88 17.41 8.48 37.07 48.76 61.91 88.38
V3 124 90.85 22.72 7.81 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
V4 124 41.48 26.53 0.00 18.00 41.87 62.84 95.76
V5 124 46.53 30.95 0.00 21.37 45.47 72.74 99.66
V6 124 43.77 31.82 0.00 16.34 40.08 70.91 99.09
V7 124 27.87 30.41 0.00 0.00 18.18 50.42 95.57
V8 124 57.10 22.01 5.43 40.09 56.39 76.06 96.98
V9 124 58.56 25.79 1.22 39.98 61.72 79.99 99.80
V10 124 39.16 34.47 0.00 4.93 28.06 74.19 97.08
V11 124 58.91 29.45 0.79 34.26 65.20 84.18 99.81
V12 124 72.95 19.56 21.47 60.37 77.41 88.73 99.53
V13 124 53.05 20.35 11.79 37.01 55.12 69.25 90.16
V14 124 56.76 26.40 2.98 34.64 59.96 77.46 99.75
V15 124 50.66 26.88 1.12 29.26 49.91 72.25 99.42
V16 124 38.05 33.52 0.00 0.00 37.06 68.82 97.44
Group 3
V1 221 62.11 17.06 12.28 51.61 63.80 76.59 89.54
V2 221 58.67 16.73 12.28 47.54 58.82 72.54 89.41
V3 221 85.91 27.52 0.44 90.91 100.00 100.00 100.00
V4 221 62.66 22.13 1.41 47.43 68.00 81.48 98.89
V5 221 68.35 25.54 0.00 50.12 73.61 90.48 99.80
V6 221 71.95 24.55 0.00 55.70 79.91 91.76 99.88
V7 221 42.88 31.48 0.00 11.86 47.89 62.88 99.08
V8 221 61.56 20.95 2.96 47.40 65.33 79.37 95.02
V9 221 72.00 23.58 2.63 59.21 79.41 90.12 99.86
V10 221 54.39 31.16 0.00 30.00 60.48 79.73 97.47
V11 221 61.90 29.10 4.03 35.94 68.58 88.22 99.75
V12 221 50.10 30.23 0.00 23.19 47.65 78.75 98.90
V13 221 61.87 20.93 6.53 46.42 65.51 77.74 95.82
V14 221 63.83 26.67 2.08 42.03 67.62 88.71 99.67
V15 221 55.11 26.45 0.22 34.47 57.95 75.10 99.38
V16 221 62.25 28.27 0.00 41.10 67.26 86.29 99.66
Group 4
V1 748 64.32 16.83 4.47 53.82 67.23 77.04 93.72
V2 748 60.05 16.34 4.47 49.31 61.58 72.41 93.72
V3 748 84.25 28.57 0.93 82.53 100.00 100.00 100.00
V4 748 64.36 22.15 0.00 51.87 68.50 81.52 98.68
V5 748 69.82 24.93 0.00 54.60 77.28 89.65 99.85
V6 748 69.34 26.45 0.00 54.21 77.43 90.68 99.85
V7 748 50.20 32.21 0.00 26.35 50.00 79.74 99.84
V8 748 67.09 20.24 5.63 54.61 71.79 83.11 97.84
V9 748 71.65 23.67 0.95 57.03 77.45 91.75 99.81
V10 748 59.94 29.61 0.00 40.12 66.72 86.71 98.12
V11 748 65.66 27.39 0.55 47.48 73.29 88.51 99.77
V12 748 73.03 21.60 5.98 59.64 78.95 90.75 99.87
V13 748 59.74 20.49 3.02 44.78 61.85 77.30 97.76
V14 748 61.19 26.10 0.86 41.57 63.33 84.33 99.72
V15 748 54.29 28.61 0.32 29.74 57.54 79.81 99.85
V16 748 60.68 29.45 0.00 40.39 66.68 85.37 99.67

Step 2: Test of data normality

Data normality is tested with the Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests. Only variables V1, V2, and V13 have an approximately normal distribution for Group 2, as assessed by the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (p > 0.05). However, as assessed by the Shapiro–Wilk test, only V1 and V2 have an approximately normal distribution for Group 2 (p > 0.05). When testing data normality for the full sample rather than for the four sample groups, the results of both tests indicate that the data are in fact not normally distributed.

Step 3: Kruskal–Wallis test, Dunn–Bonferroni post hoc test and Cohen’s d

Therefore, the nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis test is used to analyze the statistical significance of the differences between sample groups. As demonstrated in Table 5, there are differences for all 16 ESG indicators regarding the central tendencies between the four sample groups (p < 0.05).

The Dunn–Bonferroni test is used to reveal the sample groups, between which there are statistically significant differences. Table 6 provides an overview of the post hoc test. In addition, the effect size is quantitatively measured by Cohen’s d to evaluate the magnitude of these differences, as shown in Table 7.

Table 5. Independent-samples Kruskal–Wallis Test (source: own elaboration). Asymptotic significances are displayed. The confidence level is 0.095, the significance level is 0.05. Null Hypothesis: The distribution of the indicator is the same across the sample groups.
V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8
Significance 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Decision Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject
V9 V10 V11 V12 V13 V14 V15 V16
Significance 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Decision Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject
Table 6. Post hoc test for Kruskal–Wallis Test (Dunn–Bonferroni Test) (source: own elaboration). Each row tests the null hypothesis that the Sample 1 and Sample 2 distributions are the same. Asymptotic significances (two-sided tests) are displayed. The significance level is 0.05. Significance values have been adjusted by the Bonferroni correction for multiple tests.
Sample 1–Sample 2 V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8
Group 1–Group 2 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Group 1–Group 3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Group 1–Group 4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Group 2–Group 3 0.000 0.007 0.093 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.749
Group 2–Group 4 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002
Group 3–Group 4 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.095 0.117
Sample 1–Sample 2 V9 V10 V11 V12 V13 V14 V15 V16
Group 1–Group 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.000
Group 1–Group 3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Group 1–Group 4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Group 2–Group 3 0.001 0.003 1.000 0.000 0.005 0.173 1.000 0.000
Group 2–Group 4 0.000 0.000 0.087 1.000 0.022 0.686 1.000 0.000
Group 3–Group 4 1.000 0.386 0.446 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Table 7. Cohen’s d (source: own elaboration). 95% Confidence Level.
Sample 1–Sample 2 V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8
Group 1–Group 2 − 1.110 − 1.067 0.239 − 1.025 − 0.995 − 0.835 − 0.675 − 1.206
Group 1–Group 3 − 1.728 − 1.613 0.504 − 1.951 − 1.807 − 1.880 − 1.284 − 1.440
Group 1–Group 4 − 1.860 − 1.697 0.542 − 2.036 − 1.883 − 1.784 − 1.508 − 1.719
Group 2–Group 3 − 0.579 − 0.518 0.191 − 0.889 − 0.791 − 1.030 − 0.482 − 0.209
Group 2–Group 4 − 0.728 − 0.617 0.237 − 1.002 − 0.900 − 0.937 − 0.699 − 0.487
Group 3–Group 4 − 0.131 − 0.084 0.059 − 0.077 − 0.058 0.101 − 0.229 − 0.271
Sample 1–Sample 2 V9 V10 V11 V12 V13 V14 V15 V16
Group 1–Group 2 − 0.786 − 0.937 − 0.537 − 1.843 − 0.474 − 0.369 − 0.098 − 0.742
Group 1–Group 3 − 1.314 − 1.526 − 0.649 − 0.825 − 0.880 − 0.618 − 0.253 − 1.631
Group 1–Group 4 − 1.313 − 1.711 − 0.790 − 1.859 − 0.789 − 0.531 − 0.224 − 1.553
Group 2–Group 3 − 0.551 − 0.470 − 0.102 0.849 − 0.426 − 0.266 − 0.167 − 0.800
Group 2–Group 4 − 0.546 − 0.685 − 0.244 − 0.004 − 0.327 − 0.169 − 0.128 − 0.753
Group 3–Group 4 0.015 − 0.185 − 0.135 − 0.962 0.104 0.101 0.029 0.054

The Dunn–Bonferroni test confirms H1 to H6, as companies with QMSs or EMSs achieve statistically significant higher performance scores in the environmental (V4), social (V8), and governance (V13) pillars than firms without these management systems. Furthermore, groups two, three, and four present statistically significant higher overall ESG scores (V1, V2) as compared to Group 1, thereby making it possible to answer RQ1 positively. With respect to RQ2, the descriptive analysis of the full data sample reveals that Group 2 has significantly higher ratings for nine areas (except V15), while groups three and four present enhanced performance in all 10 ESG category scores, again compared to Group 1. The values for Cohen’s d confirm these statements.

Furthermore, Group 3 achieves significantly higher ESG scores (V1, V2) than Group 2 due to significant outperformance in the environmental (V4) and governance (V13) dimensions; even though the management (V14) and shareholder (V15) scores do not differ significantly, companies with EMSs achieve considerably better values in the CSR strategy category (V16), which causes the outperformance in the pillar’s rating. Although the consolidated social pillar score (V8) is not significantly different between groups two and three, companies with QMSs significantly outperform their counterparts with EMSs in terms of product responsibility (V12), while underperforming in the workforce (V9) and human rights (V10) categories. Thus, to answer RQ1 more precisely, it is concluded that EMSs appear to represent more effective business tools for enhanced ESG performance than QMSs. With respect to RQ2, it is important to mention that both management systems apparently share common strengths (V11, V14, V15), but also possess individual advantages (QMS: V12; EMS: V5, V6, V7, V9, V10, V16).

In terms of RQ3, Group 4 statistically outperforms Group 2 in the overall (V1, V2) and pillar (V4, V8, V9) scores, thus confirming H7 to H9 with respect to companies with QMSs only. There are no significant differences compared to Group 3; nonetheless, the mean and median values for Group 4 are higher in the overall scores (V1, V2) as well as the environmental (V4) and social (V8) dimensions, except for emissions (V6) and workforce (V9) matters. However, for the governance categories and pillar score (V13, V14, V15, V16), companies with EMSs alone present the highest mean and median values. In summary, H7 to H9 are confirmed with respect to firms with QMSs only, but not with respect to companies with EMSs only.

Step 4: Descriptive analysis of the control variables' sub-samples

Company size (CV1) appears to affect the magnitude of differences, as the Dunn–Bonferroni test reveals far more statistically significant differences between the four sample groups when it comes to large companies as opposed to SMEs. Furthermore, it is noticeable that large companies on average achieve higher ESG ratings than small firms. Nonetheless, companies with QMSs and/or EMSs significantly outperform firms without management systems in the overall ESG scores (V1, V2), regardless of their size. The same is true for the environmental (V4) and social (V8) dimensions, thus confirming H1 to H4. However, in the governance pillar (V13), small firms with EMSs and medium-sized firms with QMSs lack this statistically significant outperformance, thereby only partially supporting H5 and H6.

On average, European companies achieve higher ESG ratings than East Asian or North American firms, but companies with QMSs or EMSs achieve significantly better ESG performance (V1, V2) than companies without these management systems, regardless of the location (CV2). This outperformance also holds true for the social dimension (V8). However, European firms with QMSs lack this statistically significant outperformance in the governance dimension (V13) and, in East Asia, also in the environmental dimension (V4). For East Asia, the Kruskal–Wallis test even retains its null hypothesis for the shareholders score (V15). Hence, the analysis fully confirms H2, H3, H4, and H6, while only partially supporting H1 and H5.

Moreover, the nature of business operations (CV3) impacts ESG performance per sample group. For basic materials, consumer (non-)cyclicals, energy, industry, and telecommunication services, the Kruskal–Wallis test retains its null hypothesis for the shareholders score (V15) and for the utilities sector also for the management category (V14) and, conclusively, the whole governance pillar score (V13). The statistically significant higher ESG performance (V1, V2) of companies with management systems holds true for all sectors except for energy, telecommunication, and utilities, in which companies with QMSs do not present significantly better performance than companies without management systems. The same pattern appears for the same sectors as well as for basic materials for the environmental (V4) and social (V8) dimensions. For the energy sector, even companies with EMSs fail to outperform in the social pillar (V8). Regarding the governance pillar (V13), there are numerous sectors in which Group 2 (consumer (non-)cyclicals, energy, finance, industry, technology, telecommunications, utilities) and Group 3 (consumer non-cyclicals, technology, utilities) do not show statistically significant higher values than Group 1. Hence, the analysis fully confirms H2 and only partially supports H1 and H3 to H6.

Although H7 to H9 are confirmed with respect to QMSs in the full sample analysis, the analyses of control variables deliver a mixed picture. Despite the fact that H7 holds true for medium and large firms (CV1) and all three regions (CV2) against Group 2, statistically significant higher ESG scores in the environmental pillar (V4) are revealed only for industrial companies when it comes to business sectors (CV3). H8 does not hold true against Group 2 when location is considered (CV2). Significant outperformance in the social pillar (V8) is visible only in the analysis of large firms (CV1) and companies classified as industrial (CV3). The same (CV1, CV2) accounts for H9 related to the governance dimension (V13), but for technology companies (CV3). Thus, although the full sample analysis confirms H7 to H9 with respect to firms with QMSs only, the analyses of the control variables reveal numerous exceptions, which calls for more detailed research in the future.

Table 8 shows the sample group with the highest mean value for the overall and pillar scores per control variable. This overview strengthens the tendency observed in Group 4 to perform best in terms of the ESG score (V1) and the environmental (V4) and social pillars score (V8), regardless of the control variables, while the governance pillar (V13) appears to be affected most by the adoption of EMSs alone. Thus, Table 8 supports the findings of the full dataset analysis.

Table 8. Highest mean value by sample group for ESG Score and ESG Pillar Scores (source: own elaboration)
Control variable V1 V4 V8 V13
Academic and educational services n/a n/a n/a n/a
Basic materials Group 3 Group 3 Group 4 Group 2
Consumer cyclicals Group 4 Group 4 Group 4 Group 3
Consumer non-cyclicals Group 4 Group 4 Group 4 Group 4
Energy Group 4 Group 4 Group 4 Group 3
Financials Group 3 Group 3 Group 3 Group 3
Healthcare Group 4 Group 4 Group 4 Group 3
Industrials Group 4 Group 4 Group 4 Group 3
Technology Group 4 Group 4 Group 4 Group 4
Telecommunications services Group 4 Group 2 Group 2 Group 3
Utilities Group 2 Group 2 Group 2 Group 2
Europe Group 4 Group 4 Group 4 Group 3
East Asia Group 4 Group 4 Group 4 Group 4
North America Group 3 Group 3 Group 4 Group 3
Market capitalization
Small Group 4 Group 4 Group 4 Group 4
Medium Group 4 Group 4 Group 4 Group 3
Large Group 4 Group 4 Group 4 Group 3

To summarize the findings of the descriptive analysis, Table 9 provides an overview of the confirmation status of the nine hypotheses, as well as exceptions detected in relation to the control variables.

Table 9. Findings from the descriptive analysis (source: own elaboration)
Hypotheses Result (full sample) Exceptions (control variables)
Size Location Industry
H1 Confirmed / East Asia Basic materials, Energy, Telecommunication services, Utilities
H2 Confirmed / / /
H3 Confirmed / / Basic materials, Energy, Telecommunication services, Utilities
H4 Confirmed / / Energy
H5 Confirmed Medium East Asia, Europe Consumer (non-)cyclicals, Energy, Financials, Industrials, Technology, Telecommunication services, Utilities
H6 Confirmed Small / Consumer (non-)cyclicals, Technology, Utilities
H7 Only confirmed against QMS Small / Basic materials, Consumer (non-)cyclicals, Energy, Financials, Healthcare, Technology, Telecommunication services, Utilities
H8 Only confirmed against QMS Small, Medium No confirmation Basic materials, Consumer (non-)cyclicals, Energy, Financials, Healthcare, Technology, Telecommunication services, Utilities
H9 Only confirmed against QMS Small, Medium No confirmation Basic materials, Consumer (non-)cyclicals, Energy, Financials, Healthcare, Industrials, Telecommunication services, Utilities

Cluster analysis

Step 1: Single-linkage method and ward method

Cluster analysis considers the 10 ESG category scores. To detect outliers, the single-linkage method is applied. Therefore, nine data points are eliminated, which reduces the sample size from 4,292 to 4,283 companies. The outliers excluded are from all three regions and operate across various industries, and seven outliers have a large market capitalization. No outlier operates any QMSs or EMSs, and each company presents extremely low values for at least one ESG issue. The Ward method is applied to obtain homogenous groups with minimum variance. The resulting dendrogram, shown in Fig. 4, indicates clustering with two groups.

Fig4 Ronalter EnviroDevSust22 660.png

Figure 4. Retrieved dendrogram (source: own elaboration)

Step 2: Test of data normality and Mann–Whitney U test

Both the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and the Shapiro–Wilk test disprove data normality for the reduced sample with 4,283 companies and for the two clusters. The Mann–Whitney U test verifies the clustering. Table 10 illustrates that there are indeed statistically significant differences in the central tendencies of all ESG indicators (p < 0.05).

Table 10. Independent-Samples Mann–Whitney U test (source: own elaboration)
Cluster 1–Cluster 2 V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8
Mann–Whitney U 114,023 162,081 1,627,708 120,488 145,009 155,507 818,921 259,465
Wilcoxon W 3,946,319 3,994,377 2,776,078 3,952,784 3,977,305 3,987,803 4,651,217 4,091,761
Z − 51.244 − 50.002 − 19.432 − 51.631 − 51.962 − 51.299 − 37.541 − 47.485
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
V9 V10 V11 V12 V13 V14 V15 V16
Mann–Whitney U 340,245 370,305 1,051,221 739,630 919,584 1,273,263 1,687,330 211,470
Wilcoxon W 4,172,541 4,202,601 4,883,517 4,571,926 4,751,880 5,105,559 5,519,626 4,043,766
Z − 45.397 − 47.600 − 27.023 − 35.126 − 30.424 − 21.283 − 10.582 − 51.097
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Step 3: Analysis of clusters

The cluster compositions are shown in Figs. 5 and 6. Cluster 1 contains 1,515 companies, i.e., 35.4% of the full sample. The majority of Cluster 1 has at least one management system in place. More specifically, 4.9% run QMSs, 12.5% EMSs, and 42.0% operate both management systems simultaneously. Although 40.7% of the cluster does not have any management systems, the disproportionally low presence of companies without management systems is more obvious when looking at the horizontal distribution. Only 19.3% of the companies without any management systems make it into Cluster 1, whereas the respective figures for companies with QMSs, EMSs, and both management systems amount to 59.7%, 85.5%, and 85.0%, respectively. Therefore, Cluster 1 is clearly dominated by companies operating management systems. Cluster 2, on the other hand, with 2,768 organizations, is clearly overpopulated by companies without any management systems (93.0%).

Fig5 Ronalter EnviroDevSust22 660.png

Figure 5. Description of Cluster 1 (source: own elaboration)

Fig6 Ronalter EnviroDevSust22 660.png

Figure 6. Description of Cluster 2 (source: own elaboration)

Regarding company size, Cluster 1 in particular contains organizations with large market capitalizations (55.7%) and only a few small companies (11.6%). This tendency is underlined by figures from the horizontal analysis. Whereas 59.7% of all large companies are in Cluster 1, only 13.3% of the small companies can be found there. This is clearly an anomaly, given that each company size represents approximately one-third of the full sample. The vertical (32.7%) and horizontal (32.1%) share of medium-sized companies is reasonable, in light of the fact that Cluster 1 makes up only around a third of the full sample. Thus, Cluster 1 is dominated by large companies and, in turn, Cluster 2 is characterized by small companies (41.6%) and an underrepresentation of large organizations (20.6%). This is in line with the observations and remarks concerning firm size and ESG ratings presented above.

When it comes to geography, North American (29.2%) and East Asian (27.9%) firms have almost the same weight in Cluster 1, while companies from Europe are noticeably overrepresented (42.9%). Cluster 2 presents the opposite composition, with more than two-thirds of enterprises located in North America (67.4%) and much smaller shares for East Asian (19.9%) and European firms (12.6%). The horizontal analysis reveals that 65.0% of European enterprises make it into Cluster 1, whereas the respective figures for East Asia and North America are only 43.4% and 19.1%, respectively. This is consistent with the observations and remarks about location and ESG ratings mentioned above.

With respect to sectors, most organizations in Cluster 1 operate in industry (17.0%), consumer cyclicals (17.2%), or finance (20.9%). Considering that this cluster represents only about one-third of the full sample, it is noticeable that 60.2% of the companies engaged in basic materials, 49.8% in consumer non-cyclicals, and 44.6% in industry can be found here. Most organizations in Cluster 2 are engaged in healthcare (14.1%), consumer cyclicals (14.2%), or finance (31.1%).

In addition to the numerous contrasts between the compositions of the clusters, there are also major ESG performance differences between Clusters 1 and 2. As shown in Fig. 7, the mean values for the ESG indicators (V1 to V16) are higher for Cluster 1 than for Cluster 2, except for the ESG controversy score (V3). The smallest performance gap between the two clusters is detected in the shareholder score (V15).

Fig7 Ronalter EnviroDevSust22 660.png

Figure 7. Mean ESG performance, by cluster (source: own elaboration)

Cluster 1 clearly presents higher ESG performance ratings. The overall ESG score (V1) achieves a mean of 63.73 and a median of 63.80; both values are more than 35 points higher than for Cluster 2. The scores are comparably high with respect to the environmental (V4), social (V8), and governance (V13) pillars. At the level of single ESG issues, Cluster 1 reveals particularly strong outperformance in terms of resource use (V5) and emissions (V6) in the environmental dimension; workforce (V9) and human rights (V10) in the social pillar; and CSR strategy (V16) in the governance pillar (see Table 11).

Table 11. Descriptive analysis for ESG performance variables, by cluster (source: own elaboration)
Indicator n Mean SD Minimum 25th percentile Median 75th percentila Maximum
Cluster 1
V1 1,515 63.73 13.61 26.75 53.77 63.80 74.23 93.72
V2 1,515 60.12 13.55 26.09 50.26 59.62 70.74 93.72
V3 1,515 85.69 27.58 0.44 87.50 100.00 100.00 100.00
V4 1,515 62.54 20.19 3.17 48.00 64.22 79.05 98.89
V5 1,515 69.46 22.31 0.00 54.71 73.32 87.84 99.88
V6 1,515 70.28 22.30 0.00 55.52 75.00 88.68 99.88
V7 1,515 43.51 33.52 0.00 0.00 49.38 76.32 99.84
V8 1,515 65.66 17.35 13.30 53.03 67.57 79.80 97.84
V9 1,515 74.08 19.15 6.05 62.22 77.75 89.85 99.94
V10 1,515 56.97 29.38 0.00 35.80 60.26 82.12 98.91
V11 1,515 65.47 27.19 0.55 45.06 71.88 88.93 99.89
V12 1,515 62.43 27.50 0.00 35.42 68.41 86.51 99.87
V13 1,515 61.42 19.34 5.85 47.67 63.22 77.01 97.76
V14 1,515 62.70 25.68 0.35 43.83 65.70 85.10 99.72
V15 1,515 55.75 27.77 0.22 32.82 59.38 79.58 99.85
V16 1,515 63.55 25.03 0.00 46.72 67.39 85.37 99.89
Cluster 2
V1 2,768 28.02 11.89 1.06 19.23 27.02 36.03 66.90
V2 2,768 27.83 11.77 1.06 19.14 26.84 35.69 66.90
V3 2,768 96.32 14.89 0.60 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
V4 2,768 10.22 14.51 0.00 0.00 2.90 16.41 82.28
V5 2,768 10.42 17.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.33 95.17
V6 2,768 11.77 17.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.73 92.86
V7 2,768 7.72 18.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 99.38
V8 2,768 28.90 14.83 0.35 17.56 28.25 38.92 85.09
V9 2,768 31.18 21.19 0.11 13.78 27.75 44.93 98.40
V10 2,768 8.22 17.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.10 94.84
V11 2,768 41.01 24.49 0.59 20.25 42.18 61.57 98.91
V12 2,768 28.09 21.21 0.00 14.72 28.89 35.29 99.60
V13 2,768 39.11 20.41 0.31 22.96 37.13 55.22 87.41
V14 2,768 43.17 27.92 0.15 18.70 40.24 66.01 99.98
V15 2,768 45.99 28.93 0.02 20.54 43.61 69.92 99.92
V16 2,768 8.46 17.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.96 99.45

Cluster 2 shows relatively low ESG ratings. In concrete terms, the overall score (V1) is only 28.02 on average, with a median value of 27.02. The respective values for the three ESG dimensions are especially low for the environmental (V4) and social (V8) dimensions, while the highest scores are detected in the governance pillar (V13). With respect to the numerous ESG issues, Cluster 2 presents its highest performance in the management (V14) and shareholder categories (V15). These two indicators are also those with the lowest underperformance as opposed to Cluster 1 (see Table 11).

In summary, the cluster analysis produces two large clusters; most of the companies with QMSs (59.7%), EMSs (85.5%), or both management systems (85.0%) are grouped in Cluster 1, whereas most companies without management systems (80.7%) populate Cluster 2. In addition, Cluster 1 is characterized by a high percentage of large organizations and European companies. The first cluster shows significantly higher values for the 10 ESG category scores, the three ESG pillar scores, and the (combined) ESG score than the second cluster. In conclusion, the patterns detected through the cluster analysis support H1 to H6 and make it possible to answer RQ1 positively. The analysis offers insight into RQ2 by showing that Cluster 1 outperforms Cluster 2 regarding all ESG issues, while revealing the smallest performance gap for the shareholder category (V15). Referring to RQ3, the composition of the clusters supports H7 to H9 with respect to companies with QMSs only.


The statistically significant outperformance of firms with QMSs and/or EMSs as opposed to companies without such management systems for all ESG category scores (except for V15 for Group 2) aligns with previous research that revealed the positive impacts of these management systems on several issues in all three ESG pillars, including waste reduction (E) and improvements in customer (S) and internal (G) communication for QMSs[3][22], and improved resources consumption (E), enhanced stakeholder relationships (S), and better manager involvement (G) for EMSs.[76] Therefore, the results support the literature review summarized in Table 1 and contribute to the debate regarding the positive relationship between QMSs/EMSs and CSP.[120] Furthermore, it is noteworthy that although both management systems have comparable benefits for areas such as workforce (V9), product responsibility (V12), and management (V13) (see Table 1), the empirical results reveal varying magnitudes for these benefits as measured by ESG category scores, with Group 2 significantly underperforming compared to Group 3 for V9, outperforming it for V12 and presenting comparable results for V13. This contributes valuable in-depth information to the existing literature reviews about the benefits of implementing QMSs and EMSs that do not mention data-based, magnitude-related differences between both types of management systems.[45][47] Furthermore, in regard to stakeholder theory, this study evidences the management systems focus on specific stakeholder groups, such as QMSs’ overperformance in V12 being mainly beneficial for customers and EMSs’ V9 overperformance being favorable for employees.

In addition to discussing the results of the full sample, more light should be shed on the deviations detected in relation to the control variables. The descriptive analysis reveals more statistically significant differences between the four sample groups for large companies than for SMEs. Furthermore, Cluster 1 presents strong underrepresentation of small firms, thus demonstrating that large companies are more likely to achieve higher ESG scores. These findings relating to company size are consistent with previous research on ESG ratings[55] and might be due to the fact that SMEs have fewer resources to implement environmental strategies[121], and because firm size moderates issues such as stakeholder pressure and impacts media coverage[122][123], which in turn affects quality and environmental disclosure.[124][125][126] Furthermore, the analyses confirmed that European companies tend to achieve higher ESG ratings than firms from East Asia or North America, a finding that is generally aligned with previous cross-regional sustainability research.[116] The geographic heatmap of ESG performances for 2018, as presented by Daugaard and Ding[35], visualizes the ESG scores around the globe and shows that other providers of ESG data (these authors used Sustainalytics as data source) also confirm the European ESG-related superiority. Such geographical differences in CSP might be due to different sociocultural systems, legal frameworks, and stakeholder pressure for sustainability in the three regions.[127][128][129][130][131] Furthermore, it should be noted that such formal and informal institutional frameworks also play a pivotal role in facilitating or obstructing the diffusion of standards[132][133], including promotional, informational, financial, and legal measures[134], which in turn impacts ESG scores, as demonstrated by this study. Therefore, it is worth noting that the European and Asian countries included in the sample experience greater QMS and EMS diffusion rates than North American countries.[1]

Comparable normative and coercive pressures might also contribute to the deviations detected regarding sectors. Business sectors have varying levels of competition and stakeholder pressure[135][136], as well as varying needs, motivations, and barriers regarding management systems implementation. As indicated in ISO's 2020 survey results[1], the tendency to adopt QMSs and EMSs does indeed differ among sectors. Moreover, the documented impact of the nature of business operations on ESG scores might be partially explained by the differing degree of ESG transparency among sectors.[137] The cluster analysis, however, with its two distinctive clusters of ESG performance patterns, clearly reveals that Cluster 1 is overpopulated by companies with management systems, which holds true for every control variable (except for the industrial sector). However, even though companies without QMSs or EMSs are found in the cluster with the higher ESG scores, this likelihood appears to be connected to the sector type, location, and firm size. Future research should seek to gather more data on the variances identified in relation to the control variables, as well as on possible interdependencies among these.

In summary, the cluster composition supports the proposed ESG-related advantages of adopting management systems. Furthermore, companies with EMSs or both management systems are more likely to be in Cluster 1 (on average 85.5% and 85%, respectively) than firms operating with QMSs only (59.7%) for most control variable inputs. This is in-line with both the descriptive analysis of the full sample, which shows that Group 3 outperforms Group 2 in several ESG categories (see Tables 4 and 6), as well as the summarized literature review (see Table 1), which only reveals ESG-related benefits of EMSs for some areas, such as emissions[21] and regulatory compliance.[78][89] Hence, it appears reasonable that combining both management systems is significantly more favorable than operating with QMSs alone (thus confirming H7 to H9 for QMSs). However, this combination leads to slight decline in performance in the governance dimension as opposed to running EMSs only (thus refuting H7 to H9 for EMSs). This might be due to the duplication of tasks and the suboptimal use of resources when multiple separate management systems are in place[138] or the negative effects of carrying out practices with comparable goals (compare, for example, the work of Franco et al.[51]) outweighing the potential benefits of combining the systems. This contributes to the line of discussion related to complementarities in the capabilities required for QMS and EMS adoption and their impact on business performance.[105][139] Moreover, this result calls for more detailed studies on the ESG-related impacts of having multiple management systems, while distinguishing if companies simply add or actually integrate these systems[140], as integration can lead to a reduction in administrative burdens and progress in the sustainable development of corporations[39], among other benefits.

Regrettably, it is not possible to draw any conclusions from the study sample about either the integration level (none, partial, or full)[141][142] nor the corresponding integration strategies (QMS or EMS implemented first or simultaneous implementation).[143] Therefore, addressing the integration maturity level[144], which evidently affects CSP[4][145], would contribute additional knowledge related to the results of this work.


The literature suggests that ESG themes may be anchored in management systems[24], thus leading to increased scores in certain pillars[23], and this paper aims to empirically prove that quality and environmental management systems are indeed suitable business tools to achieve significantly higher performance in the environmental, social, and governance dimensions.

The analysis reveals two major clusters, which demonstrate quite different ESG score patterns for firms with and without the aforementioned management systems. The findings support hypotheses H1 to H6 as well as H7 to H9 for firms with QMSs, while revealing some exceptions related to the control variables. In summary, the work concludes that both QMSs and EMSs enable companies to achieve enhanced ESG performances (RQ1), thus being suitable business tools for addressing sustainability-related stakeholder demands. It is further demonstrated that, despite sharing certain comparable sustainability-related benefits, management systems present varying strengths and weaknesses when it comes to tackling specific ESG categories, while, overall, EMSs achieve a greater impact than QMSs on ESG pillar scores (RQ2). Consequently, combining both management systems leads to statistically significant improved ESG performance compared to operating QMSs alone, whereas the combination leads to slightly, albeit not significantly, improved scores in the environmental and social pillars and minor performance losses in the governance dimension compared to operating EMSs only (RQ3).

Through these conclusions, this work makes three key contributions to the literature and allows to derive several academic, managerial, and policy-related implications aimed at satisfying stakeholders’ needs for greater CSP. First, this paper contributes to the literature on the impact of QMSs and EMSs on companies’ ESG performance[25][63] by directly linking the concept of ESG ratings to quality and environmental management systems. As such, the focus is on all three pillars simultaneously as opposed to one dimension alone.[21][65][101] In this context, sorting the benefits of implementing QMSs and EMSs by a detailed ESG classification, which is broadly used and accepted by practitioners, represents a valuable step.

Second, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to quantitatively investigate the relationship between management system implementation and ESG scores. Thus, it contributes to the academic literature by empirically proving the positive impact of QMS and EMS implementation on ESG performance through a large-scale, cross-regional analysis.

Finally, this study sheds some additional light on the advantages of management systems in the context of stakeholder theory, as it shows that their adoption leads to positive developments in CSP-relevant organization/stakeholder relations such as workforce, customers, and community, as well as in the environmental dimension.

Managerial implications

The results show corporate executives that management systems adoption represents a way of successfully responding to the increasing CSP demands of stakeholders in areas such as product responsibility, which is best addressed by QMSs, and resource use and emissions, which are best addressed by EMSs. Decision-makers find out about the single ESG-related benefits of QMSs and EMSs with respect to the numerous stakeholder issues, as well as how combining them can impact CSP. This enables them to implement management systems in accordance with their firm’s individual sustainability needs. In view of the global green awakening and its influence on business success[146][147], such knowledge will likely become a competitive advantage for enterprises and a benefit for their stakeholders.[148][149][150]

Policy implications

The findings of this work support studies that declare management systems to foster CSP (see Table 1), thus emphasizing the importance of their international diffusion.[151] Therefore, regulators should take advantage of the fact that companies view regulators as the stakeholder group with the strongest influence on organizations’ environmental sustainability efforts.[152] The differences detected in ESG scores across regions and company sizes call for greater standardization in sustainability reporting.[153] In addition, to encourage CSP across all industries, policymakers must closely monitor which sectors are shifting towards greater sustainability due to pressure from certain stakeholder groups, and which sectors require additional institutional pressure to increase ESG practices, thus allowing coercive and regulatory forces to be balanced to foster the global diffusion of standards.[132][154]

Academic implications

The relationship identified allows deepening the research on which management systems can lead to a better ESG performance. Thus, the importance and impact of management systems implementation, as well as their internalization, is still crucial to make companies more efficient and sustainable. Also, the stakeholder theory framework has been identified as important as stakeholders can be the drivers for implementing more sustainable practices, such as management systems.

Limitations and future research

Future research should be directed at overcoming this study’s limitations as well as enlarging and/or specifying the research scope. Firstly, the chosen database and its ESG classification—ESG database providers use their own methodologies[16], thus conceptualizing the ESG dimensions differently[67]—impact the availability and quality of data. Hence, subsequent research should consider different databases to support the outcomes. Secondly, the study is intentionally directed at QMSs and EMSs in general, thus providing space for both either restricting this focus to specific MSSs (such as ISO 9001 and ISO 14001) or expanding it to other types of management systems (such as OHS) or related practices. Thirdly, the study’s data sample makes no statements regarding the integration level[155] of companies with both management systems or if other management-related practices are in place[51], which is why future investigations should shed light on the degree of integration, firm-specific circumstances, and their impacts. Fourthly, albeit the country-clustering considers common economic, cultural, and regulatory features, there are nevertheless likely to be certain management systems-related differences among countries from the same regions[93], which is why more in-detail research is needed for single countries. Fifthly, the chosen methodology implies certain limitations. Despite conducting a time filtering, this study is not longitudinal, only depicting the year 2019, thus demanding to verify the outcomes for other time periods (see, for example, the longitudinal panel data analysis applied by Hernandez-Vivanco et al.[156] for combinations of MSSs and firm financial performance). Moreover, applying other methodologies such as the mentioned panel data analysis[157][158] and structural equation modelling (SEM)[159] might enable researchers to draw additional or adjusted conclusions and give a broader picture of the relationship between management systems implementation and ESG performance.


The database used has been funded by the Catalan Government program “Ajuts a Grups de Recerca. SGR 2017,” specifically for the project 2017SGR1641. Further, Javier Romaní acknowledges support from Grant PID2020-114896RB-I00 (Agencia Estatal de Investigación, AEI / 10.13039/501100011033; Spanish State Plan for Scientific and Technical Research and Innovation 2017-2020).


Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature. Catalan Government program “Ajuts a Grups de Recerca. SGR 2017.”

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from Refinitiv Eikon, but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under licence for the current study, and so are not publicly available. Data are, however, available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of Refinitiv Eikon.

Conflict of interest

None stated.


  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 International Organization for Standardization (2021). "1. ISO Survey 2020 results - Number of certificates and sites per country and the number of sector overall". The ISO Survey: ISO Survey 2020. International Organization for Standardization. 
  2. 2.0 2.1 Robson, Lynda S.; Clarke, Judith A.; Cullen, Kimberley; Bielecky, Amber; Severin, Colette; Bigelow, Philip L.; Irvin, Emma; Culyer, Anthony et al. (1 March 2007). "The effectiveness of occupational health and safety management system interventions: A systematic review" (in en). Safety Science 45 (3): 329–353. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2006.07.003. 
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 Sampaio, Paulo; Saraiva, Pedro; Guimarães Rodrigues, António (9 January 2009). "ISO 9001 certification research: questions, answers and approaches" (in en). International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 26 (1): 38–58. doi:10.1108/02656710910924161. ISSN 0265-671X. 
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 Poltronieri, Camila Fabricio; Gerolamo, Mateus Cecílio; Dias, Teresa Cristina Martins; Carpinetti, Luiz Cesar Ribeiro (5 February 2018). "Instrument for evaluating IMS and sustainable performance" (in en). International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 35 (2): 373–386. doi:10.1108/IJQRM-11-2016-0194. ISSN 0265-671X. 
  5. U.N. Secretary General; World Commission on Environment and Development (4 August 1987). "Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future". World Commission on Environment and Development. p. 54. 
  6. Hahn, Tobias; Pinkse, Jonatan; Preuss, Lutz; Figge, Frank (1 March 2015). "Tensions in Corporate Sustainability: Towards an Integrative Framework" (in en). Journal of Business Ethics 127 (2): 297–316. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2047-5. ISSN 0167-4544. 
  7. Ashrafi, Mehrnaz; Walker, Tony R.; Magnan, Gregory M.; Adams, Michelle; Acciaro, Michele (16 November 2020). "A review of corporate sustainability drivers in maritime ports: a multi-stakeholder perspective" (in en). Maritime Policy & Management 47 (8): 1027–1044. doi:10.1080/03088839.2020.1736354. ISSN 0308-8839. 
  8. Silva, Samanthi; Nuzum, Anne-Katrin; Schaltegger, Stefan (1 April 2019). "Stakeholder expectations on sustainability performance measurement and assessment. A systematic literature review" (in en). Journal of Cleaner Production 217: 204–215. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.203. 
  9. Talbot, David; Raineri, Nicolas; Daou, Alain (1 January 2021). "Implementation of sustainability management tools: The contribution of awareness, external pressures, and stakeholder consultation" (in en). Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 28 (1): 71–81. doi:10.1002/csr.2033. ISSN 1535-3958. 
  10. 10.0 10.1 Yunus, Somaiya; Elijido-Ten, Evangeline O.; Abhayawansa, Subhash (10 February 2020). "Impact of stakeholder pressure on the adoption of carbon management strategies: Evidence from Australia" (in en). Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 11 (7): 1189–1212. doi:10.1108/SAMPJ-04-2019-0135. ISSN 2040-8021. 
  11. Jacobs, Kathleen; Petersen, Lars; Hörisch, Jacob; Battenfeld, Dirk (1 December 2018). "Green thinking but thoughtless buying? An empirical extension of the value-attitude-behaviour hierarchy in sustainable clothing" (in en). Journal of Cleaner Production 203: 1155–1169. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.320. 
  12. de-Magistris, Tiziana; Gracia, Azucena (1 April 2016). "Consumers' willingness-to-pay for sustainable food products: the case of organically and locally grown almonds in Spain" (in en). Journal of Cleaner Production 118: 97–104. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.050. 
  13. Amel-Zadeh, Amir; Serafeim, George (2017). "Why and How Investors Use ESG Information: Evidence from a Global Survey" (in en). Financial Analysts Journal 74 (3): 87–103. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2925310. ISSN 1556-5068. 
  14. Grim, Douglas M.; Berkowitz, Daniel B. (31 August 2020). "ESG, SRI, and Impact Investing: A Primer for Decision-Making" (in en). The Journal of Impact and ESG Investing 1 (1): 47–65. doi:10.3905/jesg.2020.1.1.047. ISSN 2693-1982. 
  15. van Duuren, Emiel; Plantinga, Auke; Scholtens, Bert (1 October 2016). "ESG Integration and the Investment Management Process: Fundamental Investing Reinvented" (in en). Journal of Business Ethics 138 (3): 525–533. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2610-8. ISSN 0167-4544. 
  16. 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 Avetisyan, Emma; Hockerts, Kai (1 March 2017). "The Consolidation of the ESG Rating Industry as an Enactment of Institutional Retrogression: Consolidation of the ESG Rating Industry" (in en). Business Strategy and the Environment 26 (3): 316–330. doi:10.1002/bse.1919. 
  17. 17.0 17.1 17.2 17.3 Rajesh, R.; Rajendran, Chandrasekharan (1 March 2020). "Relating Environmental, Social, and Governance scores and sustainability performances of firms: An empirical analysis" (in en). Business Strategy and the Environment 29 (3): 1247–1267. doi:10.1002/bse.2429. ISSN 0964-4733. 
  18. 18.0 18.1 18.2 Fuente, Gabriel de la; Ortiz, Margarita; Velasco, Pilar (1 August 2022). "The value of a firm’s engagement in ESG practices: Are we looking at the right side?" (in en). Long Range Planning 55 (4): 102143. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2021.102143. 
  19. Do, Yeonwoo; Kim, Sunghwan (27 March 2020). "Do Higher-Rated or Enhancing ESG of Firms Enhance Their Long–Term Sustainability? Evidence from Market Returns in Korea" (in en). Sustainability 12 (7): 2664. doi:10.3390/su12072664. ISSN 2071-1050. 
  20. Dorfleitner, Gregor; Kreuzer, Christian; Sparrer, Christian (1 September 2020). "ESG controversies and controversial ESG: about silent saints and small sinners" (in en). Journal of Asset Management 21 (5): 393–412. doi:10.1057/s41260-020-00178-x. ISSN 1470-8272. 
  21. 21.0 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4 Russo, Michael V. (1 July 2009). "Explaining the impact of ISO 14001 on emission performance: a dynamic capabilities perspective on process and learning" (in en). Business Strategy and the Environment 18 (5): 307–319. doi:10.1002/bse.587. 
  22. 22.0 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 Zimon, Dominik; Madzík, Peter; Dellana, Scott; Sroufe, Robert; Ikram, Muhammad; Lysenko-Ryba, Kateryna (2022). "Environmental effects of ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 management system implementation in SSCM" (in en). The TQM Journal 34 (3): 418–47. doi:10.1108/TQM-01-2021-0025. ISSN 1754-2731. 
  23. 23.0 23.1 Broadstock, David C.; Chan, Kalok; Cheng, Louis T.W.; Wang, Xiaowei (1 January 2021). "The role of ESG performance during times of financial crisis: Evidence from COVID-19 in China" (in en). Finance Research Letters 38: 101716. doi:10.1016/ PMC PMC7425769. PMID 32837385. 
  24. 24.0 24.1 Schmid, J.; Olaru, M.; Verje, A.-M. (2017). "The Effect of Sustainable Investments to the Economic Objectives of the Company in Relation to the Total Quality Management". The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC Journal 19 (S11): 939. 
  25. 25.0 25.1 Chams, Nour; García-Blandón, Josep; Hassan, Khaled (23 June 2021). "Role Reversal! Financial Performance as an Antecedent of ESG: The Moderating Effect of Total Quality Management" (in en). Sustainability 13 (13): 7026. doi:10.3390/su13137026. ISSN 2071-1050. 
  26. 26.0 26.1 Mishra, Prabhaker; Pandey, ChandraM; Singh, Uttam; Gupta, Anshul; Sahu, Chinmoy; Keshri, Amit (2019). "Descriptive statistics and normality tests for statistical data" (in en). Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia 22 (1): 67. doi:10.4103/aca.ACA_157_18. ISSN 0971-9784. PMC PMC6350423. PMID 30648682. 
  27. 27.0 27.1 27.2 27.3 27.4 Bu, Jianwei; Liu, Wei; Pan, Zhao; Ling, Kang (18 December 2020). "Comparative Study of Hydrochemical Classification Based on Different Hierarchical Cluster Analysis Methods" (in en). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17 (24): 9515. doi:10.3390/ijerph17249515. ISSN 1660-4601. PMC PMC7766391. PMID 33353090. 
  28. 28.0 28.1 28.2 28.3 28.4 Bu, Maoliang; Qiao, Zhenzi; Liu, Beibei (1 July 2020). "Voluntary environmental regulation and firm innovation in China" (in en). Economic Modelling 89: 10–18. doi:10.1016/j.econmod.2019.12.020. 
  29. Donaldson, Thomas; Preston, Lee E. (1 January 1995). "The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications" (in en). Academy of Management Review 20 (1): 65–91. doi:10.5465/amr.1995.9503271992. ISSN 0363-7425. 
  30. 30.0 30.1 Muñoz-Torres, María Jesús; Fernández-Izquierdo, María Ángeles; Rivera-Lirio, Juana M.; Escrig-Olmedo, Elena (1 March 2019). "Can environmental, social, and governance rating agencies favor business models that promote a more sustainable development?" (in en). Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 26 (2): 439–452. doi:10.1002/csr.1695. 
  31. 31.0 31.1 Freeman, R. Edward (1984). Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman series in business and public policy. Boston: Pitman. p. 46. ISBN 978-0-273-01913-8. 
  32. Phillips, Robert; Freeman, R. Edward; Wicks, Andrew C. (1 October 2003). "What Stakeholder Theory is Not" (in en). Business Ethics Quarterly 13 (4): 479–502. doi:10.5840/beq200313434. ISSN 1052-150X. 
  33. Laplume, André O.; Sonpar, Karan; Litz, Reginald A. (1 December 2008). "Stakeholder Theory: Reviewing a Theory That Moves Us" (in en). Journal of Management 34 (6): 1152–1189. doi:10.1177/0149206308324322. ISSN 0149-2063. 
  34. 34.0 34.1 Faculty of Accountancy and Management, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Jalan Sungai Long, Bandar Sg. Long, Cheras, 43000 Kajang, Selangor, Malaysia; Lee, Siew Peng; Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, Oxford University, Oxford, United Kingdom; Isa, Mansor; Faculty of Business and Accountancy, Universiti Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (14 August 2020). "Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Practices and Performance in Shariah Firms: Agency or Stakeholder Theory?". Asian Academy of Management Journal of Accounting and Finance 16 (1): 1–34. doi:10.21315/aamjaf2020.16.1.1. 
  35. 35.0 35.1 35.2 Daugaard, Dan; Ding, Ashley (18 February 2022). "Global Drivers for ESG Performance: The Body of Knowledge" (in en). Sustainability 14 (4): 2322. doi:10.3390/su14042322. ISSN 2071-1050. 
  36. 36.0 36.1 Friedman, Andrew L.; Miles, Samantha (1 January 2002). "Developing Stakeholder Theory" (in en). Journal of Management Studies 39 (1): 1–21. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00280. ISSN 0022-2380. 
  37. Mahesh, B.P.; Kumar, U.N. (2016). "Study and Development of Quality Management System for Educational Institutions". International Journal of Engineering Research and Advanced Technology 2 (1): 577–85. doi:10.31695/ijerat. 
  38. Rebelo, Manuel Ferreira; Santos, Gilberto; Silva, Rui (1 July 2016). "Integration of management systems: towards a sustained success and development of organizations" (in en). Journal of Cleaner Production 127: 96–111. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.011. 
  39. 39.0 39.1 Jørgensen, Tine H.; Remmen, Arne; Mellado, M. Dolores (1 January 2006). "Integrated management systems – three different levels of integration" (in en). Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (8): 713–722. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.04.005. 
  40. de Oliveira, Otavio Jose (1 October 2013). "Guidelines for the integration of certifiable management systems in industrial companies" (in en). Journal of Cleaner Production 57: 124–133. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.037. 
  41. Santos, Gilberto; Mendes, Fátima; Barbosa, Joaquim (1 November 2011). "Certification and integration of management systems: the experience of Portuguese small and medium enterprises" (in en). Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (17-18): 1965–1974. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.06.017. 
  42. Karapetrovic, Stanislav; Jonker, Jan (1 June 2003). "Integration of standardized management systems: Searching for a recipe and ingredients" (in en). Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 14 (4): 451–459. doi:10.1080/1478336032000047264. ISSN 1478-3363. 
  43. Nanda, Vivek (27 January 2005) (in en). Quality Management System Handbook for Product Development Companies (0 ed.). CRC Press. doi:10.1201/9781420025309. ISBN 978-1-4200-2530-9. 
  44. Watson, Kevin; Klingenberg, Beate; Polito, Tony; Geurts, Tom G. (1 December 2004). "Impact of environmental management system implementation on financial performance: A comparison of two corporate strategies" (in en). Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 15 (6): 622–628. doi:10.1108/14777830410560700. ISSN 1477-7835. 
  45. 45.0 45.1 Aba, Eli Kofi; Badar, M. Affan (1 September 2013). "A Review of the Impact of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 Certifications". The Journal of Technology Studies 39 (1): 42. doi:10.21061/jots.v39i1.a.4. ISSN 1541-9258. 
  46. 46.0 46.1 46.2 46.3 Bernardo, Merce; Simon, Alexandra; Tarí, Juan José; Molina-Azorín, José F. (1 May 2015). "Benefits of management systems integration: a literature review" (in en). Journal of Cleaner Production 94: 260–267. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.075. 
  47. 47.0 47.1 47.2 47.3 47.4 47.5 47.6 47.7 47.8 Tarí, Juan José; Molina-Azorín, José Francisco; Heras, Iñaki (29 December 2012). "Benefits of the ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 standards: A literature review". Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management 5 (2): 297–322. doi:10.3926/jiem.488. ISSN 2013-0953. 
  48. Singh, Prakash J. (1 May 2008). "Empirical assessment of ISO 9000 related management practices and performance relationships" (in en). International Journal of Production Economics 113 (1): 40–59. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.02.047. 
  49. 49.0 49.1 49.2 49.3 Zaramdini, Walid (29 May 2007). "An empirical study of the motives and benefits of ISO 9000 certification: the UAE experience" (in en). International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 24 (5): 472–491. doi:10.1108/02656710710748358. ISSN 0265-671X. 
  50. Zutshi, A.; Sohal, A. (1 April 2004). "Environmental management system adoption by Australasian organisations: part 1: reasons, benefits and impediments" (in en). Technovation 24 (4): 335–357. doi:10.1016/S0166-4972(02)00053-6. 
  51. 51.0 51.1 51.2 Franco, Stefano; Caroli, Matteo Giuliano; Cappa, Francesco; Del Chiappa, Giacomo (1 July 2020). "Are you good enough? CSR, quality management and corporate financial performance in the hospitality industry" (in en). International Journal of Hospitality Management 88: 102395. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102395. 
  52. 52.0 52.1 52.2 Clementino, Ester; Perkins, Richard (1 June 2021). "How Do Companies Respond to Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) ratings? Evidence from Italy" (in en). Journal of Business Ethics 171 (2): 379–397. doi:10.1007/s10551-020-04441-4. ISSN 0167-4544. 
  53. Escrig-Olmedo, Elena; Fernández-Izquierdo, María; Ferrero-Ferrero, Idoya; Rivera-Lirio, Juana; Muñoz-Torres, María (11 February 2019). "Rating the Raters: Evaluating how ESG Rating Agencies Integrate Sustainability Principles" (in en). Sustainability 11 (3): 915. doi:10.3390/su11030915. ISSN 2071-1050. 
  54. Avetisyan, Emma; Ferrary, Michel (1 June 2013). "Dynamics of Stakeholders’ Implications in the Institutionalization of the CSR Field in France and in the United States" (in en). Journal of Business Ethics 115 (1): 115–133. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1386-3. ISSN 0167-4544. 
  55. 55.0 55.1 55.2 55.3 Drempetic, Samuel; Klein, Christian; Zwergel, Bernhard (1 November 2020). "The Influence of Firm Size on the ESG Score: Corporate Sustainability Ratings Under Review" (in en). Journal of Business Ethics 167 (2): 333–360. doi:10.1007/s10551-019-04164-1. ISSN 0167-4544. 
  56. Jackson, Gregory; Bartosch, Julia; Avetisyan, Emma; Kinderman, Daniel; Knudsen, Jette Steen (1 March 2020). "Mandatory Non-financial Disclosure and Its Influence on CSR: An International Comparison" (in en). Journal of Business Ethics 162 (2): 323–342. doi:10.1007/s10551-019-04200-0. ISSN 0167-4544. 
  57. Tamayo-Torres, Ignacio; Gutierrez-Gutierrez, Leopoldo; Ruiz-Moreno, Antonia (3 June 2019). "Boosting sustainability and financial performance: the role of supply chain controversies" (in en). International Journal of Production Research 57 (11): 3719–3734. doi:10.1080/00207543.2018.1562248. ISSN 0020-7543. 
  58. the Faculty of Accountancy, Universiti Teknologi MARA; Tarmuji, Indarawati; Maelah, Ruhanita; the Faculty of Economics and Management, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia; Tarmuji, Nor Habibah; the Faculty of Computer and Mathematical Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA (1 June 2016). "The Impact of Environmental, Social and Governance Practices (ESG) on Economic Performance: Evidence from ESG Score". International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance 7 (3): 67–74. doi:10.18178/ijtef.2016.7.3.501. 
  59. Aboud, Ahmed; Diab, Ahmed (1 July 2019). "The financial and market consequences of environmental, social and governance ratings: The implications of recent political volatility in Egypt" (in en). Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 10 (3): 498–520. doi:10.1108/SAMPJ-06-2018-0167. ISSN 2040-8021. 
  60. Kotró, Balázs; Márkus, Martin (2020). "The impact of ESG rating on corporate bond yields". Economy & finance 7 (4): 474–488. doi:10.33908/EF.2020.4.7. 
  61. Shakil, Mohammad Hassan (1 August 2022). "Environmental, social and governance performance and stock price volatility: A moderating role of firm size" (in en). Journal of Public Affairs 22 (3): e2574. doi:10.1002/pa.2574. ISSN 1472-3891. 
  62. Brogi, Marina; Lagasio, Valentina (1 May 2019). "Environmental, social, and governance and company profitability: Are financial intermediaries different?" (in en). Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 26 (3): 576–587. doi:10.1002/csr.1704. ISSN 1535-3958. 
  63. 63.0 63.1 Miralles-Quirós, María; Miralles-Quirós, José; Redondo Hernández, Jesús (6 March 2019). "ESG Performance and Shareholder Value Creation in the Banking Industry: International Differences" (in en). Sustainability 11 (5): 1404. doi:10.3390/su11051404. ISSN 2071-1050. 
  64. Taliento, Marco; Favino, Christian; Netti, Antonio (22 March 2019). "Impact of Environmental, Social, and Governance Information on Economic Performance: Evidence of a Corporate ‘Sustainability Advantage’ from Europe" (in en). Sustainability 11 (6): 1738. doi:10.3390/su11061738. ISSN 2071-1050. 
  65. 65.0 65.1 Alsayegh, Maha Faisal; Abdul Rahman, Rashidah; Homayoun, Saeid (11 May 2020). "Corporate Economic, Environmental, and Social Sustainability Performance Transformation through ESG Disclosure" (in en). Sustainability 12 (9): 3910. doi:10.3390/su12093910. ISSN 2071-1050. 
  66. Chatterji, Aaron K.; Durand, Rodolphe; Levine, David I.; Touboul, Samuel (1 August 2016). "Do ratings of firms converge? Implications for managers, investors and strategy researchers: Do Ratings of Firms Converge?" (in en). Strategic Management Journal 37 (8): 1597–1614. doi:10.1002/smj.2407. 
  67. 67.0 67.1 Saadaoui, Khaled; Soobaroyen, Teerooven (5 March 2018). "An analysis of the methodologies adopted by CSR rating agencies" (in en). Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 9 (1): 43–62. doi:10.1108/SAMPJ-06-2016-0031. ISSN 2040-8021. 
  68. Burritt, Roger Leonard; Christ, Katherine Leanne; Rammal, Hussain Gulzar; Schaltegger, Stefan (1 June 2020). "Multinational Enterprise Strategies for Addressing Sustainability: the Need for Consolidation" (in en). Journal of Business Ethics 164 (2): 389–410. doi:10.1007/s10551-018-4066-0. ISSN 0167-4544. 
  69. Jeriji, Maher; Louhichi, Waël (23 January 2021). "The relationship between poor CSR performance and hard, negative CSR information disclosures" (in en). Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 12 (2): 410–436. doi:10.1108/SAMPJ-04-2020-0094. ISSN 2040-8021. 
  70. 70.0 70.1 70.2 70.3 70.4 70.5 70.6 Tan, Lee Peng (1 March 2005). "Implementing ISO 14001: is it beneficial for firms in newly industrialized Malaysia?" (in en). Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (4): 397–404. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2003.12.002. 
  71. 71.0 71.1 71.2 71.3 Schylander, Elisabeth; Martinuzzi, André (1 February 2007). "ISO 14001 – experiences, effects and future challenges: a national study in Austria" (in en). Business Strategy and the Environment 16 (2): 133–147. doi:10.1002/bse.473. 
  72. 72.0 72.1 72.2 72.3 72.4 Gavronski, Iuri; Ferrer, Geraldo; Paiva, Ely Laureano (1 January 2008). "ISO 14001 certification in Brazil: motivations and benefits" (in en). Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (1): 87–94. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.11.002. 
  73. 73.0 73.1 73.2 Comoglio, Claudio; Botta, Serena (1 January 2012). "The use of indicators and the role of environmental management systems for environmental performances improvement: a survey on ISO 14001 certified companies in the automotive sector" (in en). Journal of Cleaner Production 20 (1): 92–102. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.08.022. 
  74. 74.0 74.1 74.2 Wong, Christina W.Y.; Wong, Chee Yew; Boon-itt, Sakun (1 October 2020). "Environmental management systems, practices and outcomes: Differences in resource allocation between small and large firms" (in en). International Journal of Production Economics 228: 107734. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107734. 
  75. 75.0 75.1 Potoski, Matthew; Prakash, Aseem (23/2005). "Covenants with weak swords: ISO 14001 and facilities' environmental performance" (in en). Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 24 (4): 745–769. doi:10.1002/pam.20136. ISSN 0276-8739. 
  76. 76.0 76.1 76.2 76.3 76.4 76.5 Boiral, Olivier; Guillaumie, Laurence; Heras-Saizarbitoria, Iñaki; Tayo Tene, Christian Valery (1 April 2018). "Adoption and Outcomes of ISO 14001: A Systematic Review: Adoption and Outcomes of ISO 14001" (in en). International Journal of Management Reviews 20 (2): 411–432. doi:10.1111/ijmr.12139. 
  77. 77.0 77.1 77.2 Shi, Yuwen; Lin, Wei; Chen, Ping-Kuo; Su, Chun-Hsien (3 June 2019). "How can the ISO 9000 QMS improve the organizational innovation of supply chains?" (in en). International Journal of Innovation Science 11 (2): 278–298. doi:10.1108/IJIS-02-2018-0009. ISSN 1757-2223. 
  78. 78.0 78.1 78.2 78.3 78.4 78.5 Bravi, Laura; Santos, Gilberto; Pagano, Alessandro; Murmura, Federica (1 November 2020). "Environmental management system according to ISO 14001:2015 as a driver to sustainable development" (in en). Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 27 (6): 2599–2614. doi:10.1002/csr.1985. ISSN 1535-3958. 
  79. 79.0 79.1 Eng Ann, Goh; Zailani, Suhaiza; Abd Wahid, Nabsiah (1 January 2006). "A study on the impact of environmental management system (EMS) certification towards firms' performance in Malaysia" (in en). Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 17 (1): 73–93. doi:10.1108/14777830610639459. ISSN 1477-7835. 
  80. 80.0 80.1 Ziegler, Andreas (1 February 2015). "Disentangling technological innovations: a micro-econometric analysis of their determinants" (in en). Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 58 (2): 315–335. doi:10.1080/09640568.2013.855180. ISSN 0964-0568. 
  81. Manders, Basak; de Vries, Henk J.; Blind, Knut (1 February 2016). "ISO 9001 and product innovation: A literature review and research framework" (in en). Technovation 48-49: 41–55. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2015.11.004. 
  82. 82.0 82.1 Montobbio, Fabio; Solito, Ilaria (1 January 2018). "Does the Eco‐Management and Audit Scheme Foster Innovation in European Firms?" (in en). Business Strategy and the Environment 27 (1): 82–99. doi:10.1002/bse.1986. ISSN 0964-4733. 
  83. Papagiannakis, Giorgos; Voudouris, Irini; Lioukas, Spyros; Kassinis, George (1 September 2019). "Environmental management systems and environmental product innovation: The role of stakeholder engagement" (in en). Business Strategy and the Environment 28 (6): 939–950. doi:10.1002/bse.2293. 
  84. Erauskin‐Tolosa, Artitzar; Zubeltzu‐Jaka, Eugenio; Heras‐Saizarbitoria, Iñaki; Boiral, Olivier (1 March 2020). "ISO 14001, EMAS and environmental performance: A meta‐analysis" (in en). Business Strategy and the Environment 29 (3): 1145–1159. doi:10.1002/bse.2422. ISSN 0964-4733. 
  85. 85.0 85.1 85.2 85.3 85.4 85.5 Gotzamani, Katerina D.; Tsiotras, George D. (1 March 2002). "The true motives behind ISO 9000 certification: Their effect on the overall certification benefits and long term contribution towards TQM" (in en). International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 19 (2): 151–169. doi:10.1108/02656710210413499. ISSN 0265-671X. 
  86. 86.0 86.1 86.2 86.3 Arauz, Rita; Suzuki, Hideo (1 January 2004). "ISO 9000 Performance in Japanese Industries" (in en). Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 15 (1): 3–33. doi:10.1080/1478336032000149072. ISSN 1478-3363. 
  87. 87.0 87.1 87.2 87.3 87.4 87.5 Casadesús, Martí; Karapetrovic, Stanislav (1 June 2005). "Has ISO 9000 lost some of its lustre? A longitudinal impact study" (in en). International Journal of Operations & Production Management 25 (6): 580–596. doi:10.1108/01443570510599737. ISSN 0144-3577. 
  88. Link, S.; Naveh, E. (1 November 2006). "Standardization and Discretion: Does the Environmental Standard ISO 14001 Lead to Performance Benefits?". IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 53 (4): 508–519. doi:10.1109/TEM.2006.883704. ISSN 0018-9391. 
  89. 89.0 89.1 Morrow, David; Rondinelli, Dennis (1 April 2002). "Adopting Corporate Environmental Management Systems:" (in en). European Management Journal 20 (2): 159–171. doi:10.1016/S0263-2373(02)00026-9. 
  90. Ratiu, Patricia; Mortan, Maria (30 June 2014). ""Dynamics Of Certified Environmental Management Systems: Iso 14001 And Emas In Romania "". Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica 1 (16): 198–211. doi:10.29302/oeconomica.2014.16.1.18. 
  91. Pesce, Marco; Shi, Chenyi; Critto, Andrea; Wang, Xiaohui; Marcomini, Antonio (6 September 2018). "SWOT Analysis of the Application of International Standard ISO 14001 in the Chinese Context. A Case Study of Guangdong Province" (in en). Sustainability 10 (9): 3196. doi:10.3390/su10093196. ISSN 2071-1050. 
  92. 92.0 92.1 Magd, Hesham; Curry, Adrienne (1 December 2003). "An empirical analysis of management attitudes towards ISO 9001:2000 in Egypt" (in en). The TQM Magazine 15 (6): 381–390. doi:10.1108/09544780310502714. ISSN 0954-478X. 
  93. 93.0 93.1 93.2 Pan, Jeh‐Nan (1 November 2003). "A comparative study on motivation for and experience with ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 certification among Far Eastern countries" (in en). Industrial Management & Data Systems 103 (8): 564–578. doi:10.1108/02635570310497611. ISSN 0263-5577. 
  94. 94.0 94.1 Zeng, S.X.; Tam, C.M.; Tam, Vivian W.Y.; Deng, Z.M. (1 June 2005). "Towards implementation of ISO 14001 environmental management systems in selected industries in China" (in en). Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (7): 645–656. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2003.12.009. 
  95. Melnyk, Steven A; Sroufe, Robert P; Calantone, Roger (1 May 2003). "Assessing the impact of environmental management systems on corporate and environmental performance" (in en). Journal of Operations Management 21 (3): 329–351. doi:10.1016/S0272-6963(02)00109-2. ISSN 0272-6963. 
  96. Padma, P.; Ganesh, L.S.; Rajendran, Chandrasekharan (29 February 2008). "A study on the ISO 14000 certification and organizational performance of Indian manufacturing firms" (in en). Benchmarking: An International Journal 15 (1): 73–100. doi:10.1108/14635770810854353. ISSN 1463-5771. 
  97. 97.0 97.1 Siva, Vanajah; Gremyr, Ida; Bergquist, Bjarne; Garvare, Rickard; Zobel, Thomas; Isaksson, Raine (1 December 2016). "The support of Quality Management to sustainable development: a literature review" (in en). Journal of Cleaner Production 138: 148–157. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.020. 
  98. Grotta, Renata Carolina; Machado Júnior, Celso; Souza, Maria Tereza Saraiva de; Ribeiro, Daielly Melina Nassif Mantovani; Bazanini, Roberto (2020). "Analysis of the affinity of the principles of corporate governance to the ISO 14001 environmental management system standard". Gestão & Produção 27 (2): e4026. doi:10.1590/0104-530x4026-20. ISSN 1806-9649. 
  99. Castka, Pavel; Balzarova, Michaela A. (21 March 2008). "Adoption of social responsibility through the expansion of existing management systems" (in en). Industrial Management & Data Systems 108 (3): 297–309. doi:10.1108/02635570810858732. ISSN 0263-5577. 
  100. Benavides-Velasco, Carlos A.; Quintana-García, Cristina; Marchante-Lara, Macarena (1 August 2014). "Total quality management, corporate social responsibility and performance in the hotel industry" (in en). International Journal of Hospitality Management 41: 77–87. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.05.003. 
  101. 101.0 101.1 101.2 Frolova, Irina; Lapina, Inga (15 June 2015). Su Mi Dahlgaard-Park, Prof Jens J. Dahlgaard, Professor. ed. "Integration of CSR principles in quality management" (in en). International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences 7 (2/3): 260–273. doi:10.1108/IJQSS-03-2015-0033. ISSN 1756-669X. 
  102. 102.0 102.1 Ikram, M.; Zhou, P.; Shah, S.A.A.; Liu, G.Q. (1 July 2019). "Do environmental management systems help improve corporate sustainable development? Evidence from manufacturing companies in Pakistan" (in en). Journal of Cleaner Production 226: 628–641. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.265. 
  103. 103.0 103.1 Dubravská, Mariana; Marchevská, Martina; Vašaničová, Petra; Kotulič, Rastislav (6 July 2020). "Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management Linkage: An Empirical Analysis of the Slovak Republic" (in en). Sustainability 12 (13): 5431. doi:10.3390/su12135431. ISSN 2071-1050. 
  104. Casadesús, Martí; Karapetrovic, Stanislav; Heras, Iñaki (11 January 2011). "Synergies in standardized management systems: some empirical evidence" (in en). The TQM Journal 23 (1): 73–86. doi:10.1108/17542731111097506. ISSN 1754-2731. 
  105. 105.0 105.1 Ferrón Vílchez, Vera; Darnall, Nicole (1 May 2016). "Two are Better Than One: The Link Between Management Systems and Business Performance: Link Between Management Systems and Performance" (in en). Business Strategy and the Environment 25 (4): 221–240. doi:10.1002/bse.1864. 
  106. Karapetrovic, Stanislav; Casadesús, Martí (1 March 2009). "Implementing environmental with other standardized management systems: Scope, sequence, time and integration" (in en). Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (5): 533–540. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.09.006. 
  107. Hernandez-Vivanco, Alfonso; Bernardo, Merce; Cruz-Cázares, Claudio (1 September 2018). "Sustainable innovation through management systems integration" (in en). Journal of Cleaner Production 196: 1176–1187. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.052. 
  108. Abad, Jesús; Dalmau, Inés; Vilajosana, Jordi (1 September 2014). "Taxonomic proposal for integration levels of management systems based on empirical evidence and derived corporate benefits" (in en). Journal of Cleaner Production 78: 164–173. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.084. 
  109. Ferreira Rebelo, Manuel; Santos, Gilberto; Silva, Rui (4 March 2014). "A generic model for integration of Quality, Environment and Safety Management Systems" (in en). The TQM Journal 26 (2): 143–159. doi:10.1108/TQM-08-2012-0055. ISSN 1754-2731. 
  110. Simon, Alexandra; Karapetrovic, Stanislav; Casadesús, Martí (18 May 2012). "Difficulties and benefits of integrated management systems" (in en). Industrial Management & Data Systems 112 (5): 828–846. doi:10.1108/02635571211232406. ISSN 0263-5577. 
  111. Hartmann, Dominik; Bezerra, Mayra; Lodolo, Beatrice; Pinheiro, Flávio L. (1 May 2020). "International trade, development traps, and the core-periphery structure of income inequality" (in en). EconomiA 21 (2): 255–278. doi:10.1016/j.econ.2019.09.001. 
  112. Nallari, Raj; Griffith, Breda (30 July 2013) (in en). Clusters of Competitiveness. The World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-0049-8. ISBN 978-1-4648-0049-8. 
  113. United Nations Development Programme (2019) (PDF). Human Development Report 2019 - Beyond income, beyond averages, beyond today: Inequalities in human development in the 21st century. United Nations Development Programme. pp. 351. ISBN 978-92-1-004496-7. 
  114. Garcia, Alexandre Sanches; Mendes-Da-Silva, Wesley; Orsato, Renato J. (1 May 2017). "Sensitive industries produce better ESG performance: Evidence from emerging markets" (in en). Journal of Cleaner Production 150: 135–147. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.180. 
  115. Nadae, Jeniffer de; Carvalho, Marly M.; Vieira, Darli Rodrigues (12 August 2019). "Exploring the influence of environmental and social standards in integrated management systems on economic performance of firms" (in en). Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 30 (5): 840–861. doi:10.1108/JMTM-06-2018-0190. ISSN 1741-038X. 
  116. 116.0 116.1 Thanetsunthorn, Namporn (1 September 2015). "The impact of national culture on corporate social responsibility: evidence from cross-regional comparison" (in en). Asian Journal of Business Ethics 4 (1): 35–56. doi:10.1007/s13520-015-0042-2. ISSN 2210-6723. 
  117. 117.0 117.1 Refinitiv (April 2020). "Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Scores from Refinitiv" (PDF). Refinitiv. Archived from the original on 03 August 2020. 
  118. Testa, Francesco; Rizzi, Francesco; Daddi, Tiberio; Gusmerotti, Natalia Marzia; Frey, Marco; Iraldo, Fabio (1 April 2014). "EMAS and ISO 14001: the differences in effectively improving environmental performance" (in en). Journal of Cleaner Production 68: 165–173. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.061. 
  119. Dang, Chongyu; (Frank) Li, Zhichuan; Yang, Chen (1 January 2018). "Measuring firm size in empirical corporate finance" (in en). Journal of Banking & Finance 86: 159–176. doi:10.1016/j.jbankfin.2017.09.006. 
  120. Ferreira, Camila dos Santos; Poltronieri, Camila Fabrício; Gerolamo, Mateus Cecílio (2019). "ISO 14001:2015 and ISO 9001:2015: analyse the relationship between these management systems standards and corporate sustainability". Gestão & Produção 26 (4): e3906. doi:10.1590/0104-530x3906-19. ISSN 1806-9649. 
  121. Stubblefield Loucks, Elizabeth; Martens, Martin L.; Cho, Charles H. (28 October 2010). Dillard, Jesse. ed. "Engaging small‐ and medium‐sized businesses in sustainability" (in en). Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 1 (2): 178–200. doi:10.1108/20408021011089239. ISSN 2040-8021. 
  122. Darnall, Nicole; Henriques, Irene; Sadorsky, Perry (1 September 2010). "Adopting Proactive Environmental Strategy: The Influence of Stakeholders and Firm Size: Environmental Strategy, Stakeholders, and Size" (in en). Journal of Management Studies 47 (6): 1072–1094. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00873.x. 
  123. Seroka‐Stolka, Oksana; Fijorek, Kamil (1 September 2020). "Enhancing corporate sustainable development: Proactive environmental strategy, stakeholder pressure and the moderating effect of firm size" (in en). Business Strategy and the Environment 29 (6): 2338–2354. doi:10.1002/bse.2506. ISSN 0964-4733. 
  124. Dienes, Dominik; Sassen, Remmer; Fischer, Jasmin (3 May 2016). "What are the drivers of sustainability reporting? A systematic review" (in en). Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 7 (2): 154–189. doi:10.1108/SAMPJ-08-2014-0050. ISSN 2040-8021. 
  125. Junita, N.L.; Yulianto, A. (2018). "The Determinants Affecting Environmental Disclosure in the High Profile Companies in Indonesia". Accounting Analysis Journal 7 (3): 114–50. doi:10.15294/aaj.v7i3.18410. 
  126. Solikhah, Badingatus; Subowo (23 March 2020). "Are the Financial Performance and Media Coverage Associated with the Quality of Environmental Disclosures?". KnE Social Sciences. doi:10.18502/kss.v4i6.6675. ISSN 2518-668X. 
  127. Camilleri, Mark Anthony (5 May 2015). "Environmental, social and governance disclosures in Europe" (in en). Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 6 (2): 224–242. doi:10.1108/SAMPJ-10-2014-0065. ISSN 2040-8021. 
  128. Rosati, Francesco; Faria, Lourenço G.D. (1 April 2019). "Addressing the SDGs in sustainability reports: The relationship with institutional factors" (in en). Journal of Cleaner Production 215: 1312–1326. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.107. 
  129. Singhania, Monica; Saini, Neha (16 August 2021). "Institutional framework of ESG disclosures: comparative analysis of developed and developing countries" (in en). Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment: 1–44. doi:10.1080/20430795.2021.1964810. ISSN 2043-0795. 
  130. Tran, Mi; Beddewela, Eshani (1 April 2020). "Does context matter for sustainability disclosure? Institutional factors in Southeast Asia" (in en). Business Ethics: A European Review 29 (2): 282–302. doi:10.1111/beer.12265. ISSN 0962-8770. 
  131. Yu, Shengli; Rowe, Anna Lee (3 July 2017). "Emerging phenomenon of corporate social and environmental reporting in China" (in en). Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 8 (3): 386–415. doi:10.1108/SAMPJ-09-2016-0064. ISSN 2040-8021. 
  132. 132.0 132.1 Delmas, Magali A.; Montes-Sancho, Maria J. (1 January 2011). "An Institutional Perspective on the Diffusion of International Management System Standards: The Case of the Environmental Management Standard ISO 14001" (in en). Business Ethics Quarterly 21 (1): 103–132. doi:10.5840/beq20112115. ISSN 1052-150X. 
  133. Orcos, Raquel; Pérez-Aradros, Beatriz; Blind, Knut (1 December 2018). "Why does the diffusion of environmental management standards differ across countries? The role of formal and informal institutions in the adoption of ISO 14001" (in en). Journal of World Business 53 (6): 850–861. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2018.07.002. 
  134. Pantelitsa, Loizia; Irene, Voukkali; A. Zorpas, Antonis (1 December 2018). "Boosting Regulations Legislation Reliefs Regarding Environmental Management Systems in the Framework of EMAS and ISO 14001: Case Study of Cyprus". International Journal of Thermal and Environmental Engineering 17 (1): 19–27. doi:10.5383/ijtee.17.01.003. 
  135. Betts, Teresa K.; Wiengarten, Frank; Tadisina, Suresh K. (1 April 2015). "Exploring the impact of stakeholder pressure on environmental management strategies at the plant level: what does industry have to do with it?" (in en). Journal of Cleaner Production 92: 282–294. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.002. 
  136. Yalabik, Baris; Fairchild, Richard J. (1 June 2011). "Customer, regulatory, and competitive pressure as drivers of environmental innovation" (in en). International Journal of Production Economics 131 (2): 519–527. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.01.020. 
  137. Tamimi, Nabil; Sebastianelli, Rose (18 September 2017). "Transparency among S&P 500 companies: an analysis of ESG disclosure scores" (in en). Management Decision 55 (8): 1660–1680. doi:10.1108/MD-01-2017-0018. ISSN 0025-1747. 
  138. Lim, Sarina Abdul Halim; Priyono, Anjar; Ming, Chew Hueih (31 March 2020). "An Exploratory Study of Integrated Management System on Food Safety and Organic Certifications" (in en). International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 10 (3): Pages 882–892. doi:10.6007/IJARBSS/v10-i3/7111. ISSN 2222-6990. 
  139. Allur, Erlantz; Heras-Saizarbitoria, Iñaki; Boiral, Olivier; Testa, Francesco (21 November 2018). "Quality and Environmental Management Linkage: A Review of the Literature" (in en). Sustainability 10 (11): 4311. doi:10.3390/su10114311. ISSN 2071-1050. 
  140. Sampaio, Paulo; Saraiva, Pedro; Domingues, Pedro (13 April 2012). "Management systems: integration or addition?" (in en). International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 29 (4): 402–424. doi:10.1108/02656711211224857. ISSN 0265-671X. 
  141. Asif, Muhammad; Joost de Bruijn, Erik; Fisscher, Olaf A.M.; Searcy, Cory (5 October 2010). Karapetrovic, Stanislav. ed. "Meta‐management of integration of management systems" (in en). The TQM Journal 22 (6): 570–582. doi:10.1108/17542731011085285. ISSN 1754-2731. 
  142. Bernardo, Merce; Gianni, Maria; Gotzamani, Katerina; Simon, Alexandra (1 May 2017). "Is there a common pattern to integrate multiple management systems? A comparative analysis between organizations in Greece and Spain" (in en). Journal of Cleaner Production 151: 121–133. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.036. 
  143. Karapetrovic, Stanislav; Willborn, Walter (1 June 1998). "Integration of quality and environmental management systems" (in en). The TQM Magazine 10 (3): 204–213. doi:10.1108/09544789810214800. ISSN 0954-478X. 
  144. Domingues, Pedro; Sampaio, Paulo; Arezes, Pedro M. (1 June 2016). "Integrated management systems assessment: a maturity model proposal" (in en). Journal of Cleaner Production 124: 164–174. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.103. 
  145. Poltronieri, Camila Fabrício; Ganga, Gilberto Miller Devós; Gerolamo, Mateus Cecilio (1 January 2019). "Maturity in management system integration and its relationship with sustainable performance" (in en). Journal of Cleaner Production 207: 236–247. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.250. 
  146. Hoffman, Andrew John (2018). "The Next Phase of Business Sustainability" (in en). Stanford Social Innovation Review 16 (2): 34–39. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3191035. ISSN 1556-5068. 
  147. Weidinger, Christina (2014), Weidinger, Christina; Fischler, Franz; Schmidpeter, René, eds., "Business Success Through Sustainability", Sustainable Entrepreneurship (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg): 287–301, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38753-1_26, ISBN 978-3-642-38752-4, Retrieved 2022-09-11 
  148. Cantele, Silvia; Zardini, Alessandro (1 May 2018). "Is sustainability a competitive advantage for small businesses? An empirical analysis of possible mediators in the sustainability–financial performance relationship" (in en). Journal of Cleaner Production 182: 166–176. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.016. 
  149. Kahupi, Inamutila; Eiríkur Hull, Clyde; Okorie, Okechukwu; Millette, Sherwyn (1 March 2021). "Building competitive advantage with sustainable products – A case study perspective of stakeholders" (in en). Journal of Cleaner Production 289: 125699. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125699. 
  150. Laszlo, Chris; Zhexembayeva, Nadya (8 September 2017) (in en). Embedded Sustainability: The Next Big competitive Advantage (1 ed.). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781351278324. ISBN 978-1-351-27832-4. 
  151. Heras-Saizarbitoria, Iñaki; Boiral, Olivier (1 January 2013). "ISO 9001 and ISO 14001: Towards a Research Agenda on Management System Standards*: Research Agenda on Management System Standards" (in en). International Journal of Management Reviews 15 (1): 47–65. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00334.x. 
  152. Deloitte (2021). "2021 Climate Check: Business’ Views on Environmental Sustainability" (PDF). Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.. 
  153. Mynhardt, Henry; Makarenko, Inna; Plastun, Alex (29 May 2017). "Standardization of sustainability reporting: rationale for better investment decision-making". Public and Municipal Finance 6 (2): 7–15. doi:10.21511/pmf.06(2).2017.01. 
  154. Braun, B. (2019). "Building Global Institutions: The Diffusion of Management Standards in the World Economy – An Institutional Perspective". In Alvstam, C.G.; Schamp, E.W.. Linking Industries Across the World: Processes of Global Networking. Routledge. pp. 3–28. ISBN 9781351153928. 
  155. Karapetrovic, Stanislav (1 February 2002). "Strategies for the integration of management systems and standards" (in en). The TQM Magazine 14 (1): 61–67. doi:10.1108/09544780210414254. ISSN 0954-478X. 
  156. Hernandez-Vivanco, Alfonso; Domingues, Pedro; Sampaio, Paulo; Bernardo, Merce; Cruz-Cázares, Claudio (1 December 2019). "Do multiple certifications leverage firm performance? A dynamic approach" (in en). International Journal of Production Economics 218: 386–399. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.07.016. 
  157. Homburg, Christian; Klarmann, Martin; Vomberg, Arnd, eds. (2020) (in en). Handbook of Market Research. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-05542-8. ISBN 978-3-319-05542-8. 
  158. Yıldırım, Hasan Huseyin (2021), Adıgüzel Mercangöz, Burcu, ed., "Panel Data Analysis" (in en), Handbook of Research on Emerging Theories, Models, and Applications of Financial Econometrics (Cham: Springer International Publishing): 375–396, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-54108-8_16, ISBN 978-3-030-54107-1, Retrieved 2022-09-11 
  159. Barrett, Paul (1 May 2007). "Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit" (in en). Personality and Individual Differences 42 (5): 815–824. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.018. 


This presentation is faithful to the original, with only a few minor changes to presentation, spelling, and grammar. We also added PMCID and DOI when they were missing from the original reference. Several reference URLs were dead; a more current URL or archived version was substituted for dead URLs for this version. Dang et al. 2018 is cited inline but not included in the references section; the presumed article from the Journal of Banking & Finance was added for this version.The original article lists references in alphabetical order; however, this version lists them in order of appearance, by design.