







































 
 

28 
© 2025 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

Asian Business Research Journal 
Vol. 10, No. 6, 28-36, 2025 
ISSN: 2576-6759 
DOI: 10.55220/25766759.482 
© 2025 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 
 

 

 
Breaking into the Mainstream: The Rise of ESG in Business Management 

 
Md. Khalilur Rhaman1 
Mahfuzul Haque2 
Md. Abud Darda1 
 

 
 
 

1National University, Bangladesh. 
2University of Dhaka, Bangladesh. 
Email: khalilur.r@nu.ac.bd  
Email: mahoque@du.ac.bd   
Email: abud.darda@nu.ac.bd     
( Corresponding Author) 
 

 
Abstract 

The concept of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) has a rich and multifaceted history. 
However, a clear chronological evolution linking key historical events to the modern framework 
of ESG in business management remains underexplored. This study aims to establish a structured 
timeline that traces the development of ESG in business management through a review of 
existing literature and pivotal historical influences. Findings indicate that ESG originated from 
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Socially Responsible Investment (SRI), and broader 
societal ethical expectations. Major historical events, such as the Vietnam War, civil rights 
movements, environmental activism, and initiatives like the United Nations Global Compact, have 
significantly shaped today’s ESG principles in business management. The study highlights the 
most impactful events and trends that contributed to ESG’s current conceptual form. 

 
Keywords: Civil rights, Codes of conduct, CSR, Ethics, United Nations Global compact. 

 
1. Introduction 
The demand for non-financial information disclosures in business management has grown significantly over 

the previous three decades (Eccles et al., 2019). In the 1960s, non-financial data was primarily used for socially 
responsible investing (SRI), reflecting the traditional market view that businesses were accountable solely to 
shareholders (Friedman, 2007). However, expectations have since evolved, with increasing pressure on 
corporations to address societal, environmental, and governance concerns. Recent shifts in legal, ethical, and 
financial norms and greater transparency requirements have further reinforced this trend (Broadstock et al., 2020; 
Odera et al., 2016; Odell & Ali, 2016). Additionally, the investment community has recognized both the financial 
relevance of ESG factors and the risks associated with neglecting them, leading to a surge in ESG-related 
disclosures (Amel-Zadeh, 2018). 

Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) refers to a comprehensive framework used to measure a 
company’s sustainability and ethical impact in these three fundamental domains (EBA, 2021). The Environmental € 
aspect demonstrates the corporation’s resolve to pursue ecologically sustainable operations, covering climate 
change, carbon emissions, deforestation, biodiversity, pollution, waste management, and water usage (Dathe et al., 
2024). Social (S) is the contribution to social justice and human capital, including labor practices, diversity, human 
rights, pay equity, community relations, data privacy, health and safety, and supply-chain ethics (Kolsi & 
Muqattash, 2020). Governance (G) is the corporate leadership structure, board composition, executive 
compensation, anti-corruption policies, lobbying activities, and regulatory compliance (Karim, 2024). 

ESG originates from responsible investment (RI) principles (Li et al., 2021), encompassing mission-related 
investing, impact investing, and sustainability-focused strategies (Caplan et al., 2013). Modern ESG investing 
balances risk mitigation with opportunities for profit through sustainable growth. It serves as a benchmark for 
evaluating a company’s societal impact, environmental stewardship, and long-term financial resilience (EBAa, 
2021). Investors now rely on ESG metrics to assess corporate behavior, environmental responsibility, and future 
financial performance. The ESG framework is summarized in the following table. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

mailto:khalilur.r@nu.ac.bd
mailto:mahoque@du.ac.bd
mailto:abud.darda@nu.ac.bd
https://doi.org/10.55220/25766759.482


Asian Business Research Journal, 2025, 10(6): 28-36 

29 
© 2025 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

Table 1. ESG Context Structure. 

Dimension Factors Main feature/s 

Environmental 
(E) 

• GHG/CO2 emissions  

• Energy use and effectiveness  

• Air contaminants/pollutants 

• Utilizing water and recycling  

• Production and management of waste 
(water, solid, hazardous)  

• Impact of biodiversity and its reliance  

• Influence and reliance on ecosystems  

• Environmentally friendly goods and 
services are getting better.  

• Meeting the environmental laws 

• Steps were taken to protect the 
Environment 

• Environmental Management System 
(EMS) and Certifications 

• Environmental Related Awards  

Environmental sustainability refers to how an 
organization affects living and nonliving natural 
systems, such as ecosystems, air, water, and land.  

Social 
 (S) 

• Freedom of association for employees  

• Using children as a workforce 

• Forced or required work  

• Safety and health at work  

• Customer safety and health  

• Discrimination, diversity, and equal 
Opportunity 

• Impact of poverty on a community  

• Supply chain 
administration/management 

• Education and training  

• Client Privacy  

• Local effects  

 
Social responsibility is a responsibility that relates to 

the human element of the community. 

 
 
 
 
 
 

Governance (G) 

• Codes of conduct and business 
principles/Business ethics and moral 
guidelines  

• Accountability  

• Transparency and disclosure/ Openness 
and disclosure 

• Executive compensation  

• Board composition and diversity  

• Corruption and extortion  

• Stakeholder involvement 

• Ownership rights  

• Internal and statutory Audit procedure 

• Nomination and remuneration policy 

Governance mechanisms include board committees, 
corporate ethics guidelines, supply chain assurance, 

and company ethics units. 
 

 

Source: ESG: Research Progress and Future Prospects (Li et al., 2021), modified. 

 
In the last ten years, studies on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) topics have grown significantly in 

various business fields, such as accounting, finance, and management (Berg et al., 2021). While the modern ESG 
framework emphasizes corporate responsibility toward society, the environment, and stakeholders, this concept is 
not new. Corporate concern for societal well-being dates back centuries (Carroll, 2008). In fact, the origins of ESG 
can be traced to the seventeenth century under different names, such as "codes of conduct," with early influences 
including religious principles, ethical standards, and cultural values (FasterCapital, 2025; Preqin, 2022). 

This study aims to establish a chronological timeline, allowing readers to trace the evolution of ESG in 
business management. Specifically, it examines the key historical events and developments that have most 
significantly shaped ESG as a conceptual framework. 
 

2. Methodology 
This study examines key historical events and initiatives by individuals, institutions, and organizations 

that shaped the evolution of ESG. While the history of ESG is broad, this research focuses specifically on its 
origins and development. 

The present study analyzes and summarizes existing studies, mainly gathered from Google Scholar. The 
search focused on journal articles that included the terms "Environment, Social and Governance," "history of 
ESG," and "evolution of ESG", etc. To ensure comprehensive coverage of existing research, ScienceDirect, 
ProQuest, and Web of Science were used alongside Google Scholar.  

To ensure comprehensiveness, additional relevant sources, such as reports, working papers, and 
publications from international organizations and NGOs, were identified through citation tracking and included in 
the analysis. 
 



Asian Business Research Journal, 2025, 10(6): 28-36 

30 
© 2025 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

3. Evolutionary Roots of ESG 
The ideas behind socially responsible investing (SRI), corporate social responsibility (CSR), and charitable 

giving existed long before the current environmental, social, and governance (ESG) framework (Valls Martínez et 
al., 2021; Eccles et al., 2019). The origins of these ideas can be traced back to major historical events, such as 
the Vietnam War, as well as social movements advocating for civil rights, women’s rights, and environmental 
protection (Idowu, 2015). ESG did not emerge overnight but evolved over decades through collective efforts within 
the business community, shaping today’s understanding of the concept (Barnes, 2021). 

For many years, voluntary CSR initiatives have encouraged businesses to adopt ethical standards and 
principles, which later became foundational to ESG (Rasche et al., 2012). Key examples include ISO 
14000 (Christmann & Taylor, 2006), Social Accountability 8000 (SA8000) (Gilbert & Rasche, 2007), and Global 
Reporting Initiative (GRI) (Etzion & Ferraro, 2010). Among these initiatives, the United Nations Global Compact 
(UNGC) stands out as one of the most prominent and widely adopted voluntary CSR frameworks (Kell, 2013; 
Rasche & Gilbert, 2012). The following timeline illustrates the historical development of ESG over the past 
century, providing context for its evolution. 
 
3.1. 1700: ESG by another Name 

ESG factors influenced investment and business decisions long before the term was formally established. Early 
examples of value-based investing were driven by religious beliefs, ethical principles, and cultural norms, often 
manifesting in exclusion lists or codes of conduct. For instance, in the 18th century, the Quakers and Methodists in 
the U.S. and Europe refused to invest in or profit from slave labor, marking one of the earliest documented cases 
of socially conscious investing (Preqin, 2022). 
 
3.2. 1920: Responsible Investment 

Responsible investment (RI) traces its origins back to the American colonial era, when several religious 
organizations chose not to invest their endowment funds in the slave trade (Commonfund, 2013). In 1921, the 
Pioneer Group was the first mutual fund to avoid investing in alcohol, tobacco, and gambling (Caplan et al., 2013). 
 
3.3. 1930: Berle-Dodd argument 

The Berle-Dodd argument1 of the 1930s centered on a fundamental question: Should corporations exist solely 
to maximize shareholder value, or do they have broader societal obligations? (Bratton & Wachter, 2008). Berle 
argued that corporations must "serve all of society" by operating within legal boundaries (Berle & Means, 1932). 
He further contended that investor interests should either align equally with or even yield to the claims of other 
stakeholders, including employees, customers, and the broader community (Berle, 1932). 
 
3.4. 1950: Social Responsibility 

The term "social responsibility", referring to the consideration of stakeholder interests in business operations, 
first emerged in the 1950s (Jackson, 2010; Ostas, 2004; Carroll, 1999). During this period, unions such as the 
Electrical and Mine Workers' Unions began directing pension funds toward affordable housing and healthcare 
initiatives, marking an early example of socially conscious investing (Barnes, 2021). 
 
3.5. 1960: Socially Responsible Investing  

Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) became a prominent force during the social movements of the 1960s, 
including the civil rights, anti-war, environmental, and labor rights movements (Caplan et al., 2013). In 1968, U.S. 
university students and activists led widespread protests against the Vietnam War, fueling a global wave of social 
unrest largely defined by public opposition to military aggression2  (Barnes, 2021). This era also saw the rise of 
several transformative social justice movements, including the Black Power Movement, the American Indian 
Movement, Expanded advocacy for women’s rights, farmworkers' rights campaigns, and the early environmental 
activism of the Green Power Movement. Notably, the mid-1960s3 civil rights movement introduced new 
frameworks for advancing racial equality, further shaping the decade’s push for systemic change (Barnes, 2021). 
 
3.6. 1970: Earth Day 

By the 1970s, the expansion of environmental, workplace safety, and consumer rights protection laws marked 
the emergence of the modern regulatory state (Dathe et al., 2024; Pollman, 2021). According to the Earth Day4 
Network, April 22, 1970, the first Earth Day is widely regarded as the birth of the modern environmental 
movement. Remarkably, the event garnered unprecedented bipartisan support, uniting Republicans and Democrats, 
the wealthy and poor, urban and rural communities, as well as business leaders and labor activists. This rare 
political consensus led to landmark legislation, including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and 
the Endangered Species Act. It also spurred the creation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency4 (EPA). 

That same year, economist Milton Friedman (1970) introduced his influential Shareholder Value Theory (cited 
from Barnes, 2021), arguing in his seminal paper, "The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits,"  that 
corporations have no obligation to pursue social welfare beyond legal compliance. However, Dunn & Burton (2006) 
later noted that long-term profit maximization inherently requires sustainable business practices, suggesting 
that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), and, by extension, ESG, can align with a firm’s financial success. Thus, 
while Friedman’s view initially challenged CSR, it ultimately contributed to the framework underpinning 
modern ESG initiatives. 
 
3.7. 1980: Rise of Socially Responsible Investing  

The concept of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) is still evolving. One key moment in its 
development was the U.S. government’s Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act, which banned new investments in 



Asian Business Research Journal, 2025, 10(6): 28-36 

31 
© 2025 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

South Africa5 (Roncalli, 2024). This law imposed sanctions and set five conditions for lifting them, all aimed at 
ending apartheid. 

Another major event was the Prudhoe Bay oil spill in Alaska, one of many environmental disasters in recent 
decades. This incident led to the creation of CERES6 (Coalition of Environmentally Responsible Companies), a 
group focused on sustainable business practices. 

Moreover, a seminal (Coleman, 1988) article, 'Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital,' challenged 
conventional economic assumptions centered on self-interest. By proposing social capital as a measurable form of 
value, it represented a significant theoretical shift. 

Socially responsible investing (SRI), also called sustainable investing, grew significantly in the 1980s as a way 
to align investments with ethical values. Major events like the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and South Africa’s 
apartheid movement pushed individuals and organizations to support companies that were socially and 
environmentally responsible (Bourghelle et al., 2009). 

Unlike traditional investing, SRI aims not just for financial profit but also for positive social impact (Hirst, 
2016). It pioneered the integration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations into investing 
(Bourghelle et al., 2009). Today, as more traditional investors focus on ESG issues, SRI has become mainstream. 
Historically, SRI has strong ties to religious institutions, which often promoted ethical investing. 
 
3.8. 1990s: Global Landmark Sustainability Legislation 

In the 1990s, investors began to realize that traditional "non-financial" factors, like environmental and social 
impacts, were crucial for predicting a company’s long-term success (FasterCapital, 2025). This led to the rise of 
ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investment. 

A key milestone was the establishment of the Domini 400 Social Index7 (now known as the MSCI KLD 400 
Social Index) in 1990 (Sherwood & Pollard, 2018). It was the first major index to systematically track sustainable 
investments. 

In 1992, during the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, global leaders made significant progress by adopting 
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)8. With 154 countries on board, the 
treaty took effect in 1994. Its purpose was to curb greenhouse gas emissions and stop dangerous human disruptions 
to the climate system (Kapmeier et al., 2021). 

In 1994, John Elkington introduced the "Triple Bottom Line"9 (TBL) concept, arguing that businesses should 
focus not just on profits but also on people and the planet. According to the TBL framework, corporate social 
responsibility (CSR) must address social, economic, and environmental factors (Mendes et al., 2023). The TBL 
Index measures financial growth, environmental progress, and social equity (Wang, 2005). Elkington’s idea has 
evolved into today’s ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) framework, where governance reflects how a 
company’s management practices affect its performance. 

Later, in 1995, the United Nations created the Indicators of Sustainable Development to help policymakers 
track sustainability progress (United Nations, 2007). 

RobecoSAM, an investment firm founded in 1995, specializes in sustainable investing. The company provides 
services such as active ownership, sustainability consulting, governance support, asset management, and 
sustainability indexes (Huber and Comstock, 2017). Today, RobecoSAM ranks nearly 2,000 companies based on 
their sustainability performance. 

By the mid-1990s, socially responsible investing (SRI) had already made a strong impact on corporate ESG 
(environmental, social, and governance) practices (Bickel, 2023). At that time, there were about 60 SRI mutual 
funds, managing around $64010 billion in assets. 

The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)11, founded in 1997, is an international nonprofit organization that 
supports companies in being accountable for their effects on society and the environment (UKPACT, 2022). GRI 
has created a standardized framework for companies to report these impacts transparently (Hasan, 2025). 

In 1998, the Consultative Group developed the Dashboard of Sustainability, which uses a car dashboard-style 
interface to show how well a country is performing in sustainable development (Delai & Takahashi, 2011). 

Around the same time, Levering & Moskowitz (1998) identified the top U.S. companies leading in corporate 
social responsibility (CSR). As climate change concerns grew, environmental and social issues gained more public 
and media attention. Later, Levering & Moskowitz (2003) also emphasized corporate governance, linking it to 
ethical investing that considers environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors. 

In 1999, the Dow Jones Sustainability Index12 (DJSI) launched the first global sustainability index for 
publicly traded companies, based on RobecoSAM’s ESG research (Jones, 2005). Since then, RobecoSAM and S&P 
Dow Jones Indices have partnered to publish and calculate ESG indices (Huber & Comstock, 2017). 
 
3.9. 2000s: Launch of the United Nations Global Compact  

At the January 1999 World Economic Forum in Davos, former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan 
called upon the international business community to collaborate with the UN in establishing a global pact centered 
on shared values and principles (The New Humanitarian, 2006). This initiative sought to embed ethical and social 
considerations into the worldwide market, ensuring that economic globalization would align with broader 
humanistic objectives (United Nations, 1999). Following this appeal, the United Nations Global Compact 
(UNGC) was formally launched in July 2000 as a strategic policy framework to promote sustainable and socially 
responsible business practices (Grayson & Jane, 2013).  

The United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) presents ten fundamental principles across four main categories: 
human rights, fair labor practices, environmental protection, and combating corruption (Rasche et al., 2012). These 
principles were selected based on three criteria: (1) their relevance to the development of international norms, (2) 
their potential to mitigate pressing social and environmental challenges, and (3) the extent of governmental 
endorsement across jurisdictions (Kell & Levin, 2003). Since its inception, the UNGC has grown into the world’s 
largest corporate sustainability initiative, with over 13,000 signatories from 160 countries (Barnes, 2021). 



Asian Business Research Journal, 2025, 10(6): 28-36 

32 
© 2025 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

Research shows that joining the UN Global Compact (UNGC) improves a company's ESG performance, as 
businesses adjust their practices to follow the Compact's guidelines (Ortas et al., 2015). 

In 2001, Prescott-Allen and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) developed 
the Sustainability Barometer as a methodological framework for assessing sustainability (Robati & Rezaei, 2022). 
This tool provides a systematic analytical approach to evaluating progress in sustainable development. 

In 2002, Chris Yates-Smith13 founded one of the earliest research teams focused on environmental finance in 
London. This informal consortium, termed The Virtuous Circle, comprised senior financial executives, corporate 
lawyers, and environmental stewardship NGOs. Its primary objective was to examine the interplay between socio-
environmental norms and financial performance (Sarfraz et al., 2023). 

That same year, the ETHOS Corporate Social Responsibility Indicators were introduced to assess corporate 
management in relation to business social responsibility (BSR) practices, strategic alignment, and overall 
organizational performance (Ethos, 2005). 

2004 – The Global Compact published the landmark report Who Cares Wins: Connecting Financial Markets to a 
Changing World14 (Global Compact, 2004). This report urged businesses to incorporate ESG considerations into 
their core management strategies as a critical factor for long-term market success. Additionally, it provided 
actionable recommendations for firms seeking to integrate ESG principles into their operations (Barnett, 2006). 
The primary objective of the report was to enhance awareness among financial market participants, including asset 
managers, securities brokers, and research analysts, regarding the importance of systematically addressing ESG 
issues in investment decision-making and financial services (Hebb et al., 2015). 

In 2005, approximately one year after the publication of the Who Cares Wins report, the endorsing institutions14 
along with other invited organizations, convened in Zurich on August 25 to evaluate progress in implementing the 
report’s recommendations among financial market participants. The Zurich meeting also addressed emerging 
challenges within the ESG landscape15.  

That same year, the international law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer (2005) released the Freshfields 
Report, which legally affirmed that ESG considerations could be integrated into investment analysis without 
violating fiduciary duties. The report further argued that ESG factors could fall within the scope of fiduciary 
responsibility, provided they align with long-term value creation. 

Additionally, to quantitatively assess environmental responsibility, economic returns (wealth creation), and 
social development, the Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE, 2005) introduced Sustainability Metrics in 
2005, providing a structured framework for measuring corporate sustainability performance (McLellan, 2014). 
 
3.10. 2006: Introduction of the UNPRI Reporting Framework 

In April 2006, the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment (UNPRI)16 established a clear 
reporting system to help include environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors in investment evaluations 
and choices (Sjåfjell & Richardson, 2015; Preqin, 2022). The six UNPRI principles encourage investors to 
incorporate ESG factors into their strategies while mandating greater transparency from entities on these issues. 
These principles, grounded in concerns over climate change and human rights, provide a standardized approach for 
mainstream investors to assess ESG risks and opportunities. As of 2016, over 4,800 signatories from more than 80 
countries, representing approximately $100 trillion in assets, had adopted these principles (PRI, 2016). Each 
signatory is contractually obligated to uphold the Six Principles for Responsible Investment (Preqin, 2022). 
 

3.11. The Financial Implications of ESG Disclosure 
The study findings of Barnett & Salomon (2006) revealed that community-related disclosures positively 

correlated with financial performance, whereas labor and environmental disclosures had a negative impact. These 
findings have significantly influenced how ESG considerations are evaluated in the business sector. 
 

3.12. Regulatory Developments in ESG Reporting 
Regulatory requirements for ESG disclosures have expanded rapidly, with governments facing growing 

pressure to mandate standardized reporting (Gitman et al., 2009). For instance, the UK Companies Act 
2006 required listed companies on the London Stock Exchange to disclose material non-financial information in 
their annual reports. While such regulations primarily focus on material ESG risks, they also facilitate more 
informed investor-company engagements by improving transparency. 
 
3.13. 2008 – The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) and the Rise of ESG Principles 

The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008 accelerated the adoption of environmental, social, and governance 
(ESG) principles, as the crisis underscored systemic risks that traditional financial models had overlooked (Sampei, 
2018). Before the GFC, ESG considerations were largely absent from mainstream corporate and investment 
discourse, despite the pre-existing concept of Socially Responsible Investing (SRI). Paradoxically, 2008 marked a 
pivotal year for ESG17, as institutional investors increasingly committed to its principles. However, concerns 
persisted that the credit crisis might hinder the broader integration of ESG factors into financial decision-making. 

Contrary to expectations, the 2009 RI Landscape Survey revealed that the financial crisis did not diminish 
investor interest in ESG strategies (Gitman et al., 2009). Notably, 67% of respondents believed the GFC would not 
reduce investments aligned with ESG criteria, while 33% anticipated an increase in ESG-driven asset allocation. 
These findings suggest that the crisis reinforced, rather than undermined, the perceived value of ESG integration 
in investment practices. 
 
3.14. 2010: ESG Integration into Mainstream Finance 

Since the launch of the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment (UNPRI) in 2006, the 
proliferation of ESG regulations and standards has elevated ESG considerations to a core priority for the financial 
services sector (Cadman, 2011). In a significant development, the UNPRI introduced a new ESG disclosure 



Asian Business Research Journal, 2025, 10(6): 28-36 

33 
© 2025 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

framework for private equity, developed in collaboration with a coalition of 40+ limited partners, 20 private equity 
industry associations, and 10 leading general partners18 (UNPRI, 2010). 

Delai & Takahashi (2011) developed an Environmental, Social, and Economic (ESE) model to provide 
a comprehensive, objective, and value-driven framework for assessing corporate sustainability. Their methodology 
synthesized established metrics from multiple authoritative sources, including the Commission on Sustainable 
Development (CSD) Indicators, the Dashboard of Sustainability, the Barometer of Sustainability, the Global 
Reporting Initiative (GRI), the Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE) Sustainability Metrics, the Dow Jones 
Sustainability Index (DJSI), the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Index, and the ETHOS Corporate Social Responsibility 
Indicators, thereby integrating diverse sustainability assessment approaches into a unified analytical framework.  
 

3.15. Institutional Developments in ESG Standardization 
In 2011, the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) was founded by Jean Rogers19 to 

establish industry-specific ESG accounting standards (Townsend, 2020). SASB collaborated with the U.S. 
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), investors, and corporations to quantify material ESG risks and 
enhance disclosure practices. By 2020, 175 companies had adopted SASB-compliant sustainability reporting (Pavan 
& Kreuze, 2022). 

The International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC)20 further advanced ESG transparency by releasing 
its Consultation Draft of the International IR (Integrated Reporting) Framework in 2013. This framework 
emphasized six forms of capital: financial, manufactured, intellectual, human, social, and natural, providing 
a holistic view of organizational value creation (IIRC, 2013). Concurrently, the GRI launched its G4 Sustainability 
Reporting Guidelines, introducing 27 new disclosure requirements to improve comparability and rigor in 
sustainability reporting (KPMG International, 2013). 
 

3.16. Global Policy and Market Initiatives 
In 2015, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG)21 was established, aligning financial growth 

with social equity and ecological sustainability (Bose, 2020). Building on this momentum, the GRI transitioned 
from guidelines to mandatory standards in 2016, reinforcing its mission to drive social, environmental, and 
economic impact through corporate transparency. The same year, the UN Sustainable Stock Exchanges (SSE) 
Initiative was introduced to enhance ESG disclosure among publicly listed companies, promoting standardized and 
meaningful risk reporting (Townsend, 2020). 
 
3.17. 2020: Recent Regulatory and Industry-Led ESG Developments 

By 2021, efforts to harmonize ESG standards across rating agencies, industries, and jurisdictions had 
intensified, marked by key initiatives such as technology-driven solutions (e.g., Workiva’s reporting tools), the 
Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) framework, regulatory measures including the EU 
Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR), and guidelines issued by the European Securities and Markets 
Authority (ESMA) and the European Commission (EC) (ESMA, 2022; AFM, 2022; EC, 2022; ESA, 2021). These 
collaborative endeavors sought to enhance transparency, reduce ambiguity in ESG compliance, and strengthen 
accountability in sustainable finance. 
 

 
Figure 1. Chronological timeline for the evolution of ESG. 



Asian Business Research Journal, 2025, 10(6): 28-36 

34 
© 2025 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

4. Conclusion 
This study’s primary contribution lies in its historical analysis of ESG’s evolution, contextualized within key 

societal and global developments that shaped contemporary ESG frameworks. By constructing a sequential 
timeline, the research elucidates ESG’s conceptual progression, tracing its origins to Corporate Social 
Responsibility (CSR) and Socially Responsible Investing (SRI), which initially emphasized legal compliance. The 
modern ESG paradigm, however, has evolved into a holistic framework that aligns business operations with social 
and environmental stewardship, ensuring long-term sustainability without compromising planetary boundaries. 

Historical catalysts, including the Vietnam War, civil rights movements, environmental activism, women’s 
rights advocacy, and the UN Global Compact, have collectively influenced today’s ESG discourse. The study 
further delineates the interplay between shareholder expectations (particularly governance standards), societal 
demands, and environmental imperatives, demonstrating how these factors converge within ESG frameworks. 

Beyond its theoretical contributions, this research offers practical utility by providing a foundational reference 
for understanding ESG’s historical trajectory. Such insights are instrumental for businesses seeking to leverage 
ESG principles for long-term value creation, underscoring the material relevance of sustainability in contemporary 
corporate strategy. 
 

 Endnotes 
1. The Berle-Dodd debate is the name for a series of exchanges over the purposes of the corporation between 

the New Deal architect, A. A. Berle, and Merrick Dodd, a law professor. 
2. Behind the Anti-War Protests That Swept America in 1968  
3. Speaking and Protesting in America: https://americanarchive.org/exhibits/first-amendment/protests-60s-

70s  
4. In the spring of 1970, Senator Gaylord Nelson created Earth Day as a way to introduce a legal or regulatory 

framework to protect the environment. 
5. The Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 was a law enacted by the 99th United States Congress. Pub. 

L. 99-444. H.R. 4868. 
6. CERES is a nonprofit organization (1989) transforming the economy to build a just and sustainable future for 

people and the planet. 
7. The MSCI KLD 400 Social Index was launched in 1990 and is designed to help socially conscious investors 

weigh social and environmental factors in their investment choices. It was founded by KLD’s Amy Domini as 
the Domini 400 Social Index.  

8. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is an international 
environmental treaty to combat “dangerous human interference with the climate system”, in part by 
stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.  

9. The triple bottom line is a business concept that posits firms should commit to measuring their social and 
environmental impact, developed by John Elkington in 1994.  

10. Social Investment Forum, 2005 Report on Socially Responsible Investing Trends in the United States, 
January 24, 2006, pp. iv, v, 1. http://ussif. 
membershipsoftware.org/files/Publications/05_Trends_Report.pdf. The Social Investment Forum was the 
predecessor to the US SIF Foundation. 

11. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) was founded in 1997 by the Coalition for Environmentally 
Responsible Economies, the UN Environment Program, and the Tellus Institute.  

12. The Dow Jones Sustainability Indices (DJSI) is based on a review of a company's financial, environmental, 
and social performance, evaluating factors including corporate governance, risk management, branding, 
reducing global warming, supplier chain standards, and labor practices.  

13. Chris Yates-Smith is a member of the international panel chosen to oversee the technical construction, 
accreditation, and distribution of the Organic Production Standard and founder of one of the City of London's 
leading branding consultancies. 

14. The financial industry recommends a better integration rate of environmental, social, and governance issues 
in analysis, asset management, and securities brokerage. Endorsed by ABN Amro; Aviva; AXA Group; Banco 
do Brasil; Bank Sarasin; BNP Paribas; Calvert Group; CNP Assurances; Credit Suisse Group; Deutsche Bank; 
Goldman Sachs; Henderson Global Investors; HSBC; IFC; Innovest; ISIS Asset Management; KLP 
Insurance; Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance; Morgan Stanley; RCM; UBS; Westpac; World Bank Group. 

15. Conference Report on ‘Investing for Long-Term Value’ Integrating environmental, social, and governance 
value drivers in asset management and financial research, Zurich, 25 August 2005. 

16. The United Nations’ Principles for Responsible Investment is an international organization that works to 
promote the incorporation of environmental, social, and corporate governance factors (ESG) into investment 
decision-making. 

17. Mercer. “2008 in Review: Responsible Investment isn’t just for Christmas.” January 12, 2009. 
18. U.N. Principles for Responsible Investing, “Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance (ESG) 

Disclosure Framework for Private Equity”, March 25, 2013. http://www.unpri.org/wp-
content/uploads/13161_ESG_ Disclosure_Document_v6.pdf. 

19. https://iri.hks.harvard.edu/links/transparency-performance-industry-based-sustainability-reporting-key-
issues 

20.  A global alliance of regulators, investors, businesses, standard-setters, the accounting profession, academia, 
and NGOs is the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC). 

21. A set of 17 connected goals known as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) or Global Goals is 
intended to serve as a "common blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet today and into 
the future". The SDGs are no poverty; zero hunger; good health and well-being; quality education; gender 
equality; clean water and sanitation; affordable and clean energy; decent work and economic growth; industry, 
innovation and infrastructure; reduced inequalities; sustainable cities and communities; responsible 



Asian Business Research Journal, 2025, 10(6): 28-36 

35 
© 2025 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

consumption and production; climate action; life below water; life on land; peace, justice, and strong 
institutions; and partnerships for the goals. 

 

References 
Amel-Zadeh, A. (2018). Social responsibility in capital markets: A review and framework of theory and empirical evidence [Working paper]. Said 

Business School, University of Oxford. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2664547 
Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM). (2022). Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR). https://www.afm.nl/nl-

nl/professionals/onderwerpen/duurzaamheid-sfdr 
Barnes, K. (2021). A history of how modern ESG came to be. https://npengage.com/companies/esg-history/ 
Barnett, M. L., & Salomon, R. M. (2006). Beyond dichotomy: The curvilinear relationship between social responsibility and financial 

performance. Strategic Management Journal, 27(11), 1101–1122. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.557 
Berg, F., Fabisik, K., & Sautner, Z. (2021). Rewriting history II: The (un)predictable past of ESG ratings (Finance Working Paper No. 708/2020). 

European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI). https://ssrn.com/abstract=3722087 
Berle, A. A., & Means, G. C. (1932). The modern corporation and private property. https://books.google.com.bd/books?id=mLdLHhqxUb4C 
Berle, A. A. (1932). For whom corporate managers are trustees: A note. Harvard Law Review, 45(8), 1365–1372. 

https://doi.org/10.2307/1331920 
Bickel, F. S. (2023). Bridging the earth to the sky: The historical precedence and flaws of stakeholder capitalism (Master’s thesis, Georgetown 

University). ProQuest. https://www.proquest.com/docview/3067804988 
Bose, S. (2020). Evolution of ESG reporting frameworks. In D. C. Esty & T. Cort (Eds.), Values at work (pp. 15–38). Palgrave Macmillan. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55613-6_2 
Bourghelle, D., Jemel, H., & Louche, C. (2009). The integration of ESG information into investment processes: Toward an emerging 

collective belief? Vlerick Leuven Gent Working Paper Series, 2009/26. https://ideas.repec.org/p/vlg/vlgwps/2009-26.html 
Bratton, W. W., & Wachter, M. L. (2008). Shareholder primacy’s corporatist origins: Adolf Berle and The Modern Corporation. Journal of 

Corporation Law, 34, 99–152. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1021273 
Broadstock, D. C., Matousek, R., Meyer, M., & Tzeremes, N. G. (2020). Does corporate social responsibility impact firms’ innovation 

capacity? The indirect link between environmental & social governance implementation and innovation performance. Journal of 
Business Research, 119, 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.014 

Cadman, T. (2011). Evaluating the governance of responsible investment institutions: An environmental and social perspective. Journal of 
Sustainable Finance & Investment, 1(1), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.3763/jsfi.2010.0004 

Caplan, L., Griswold, J. S., & Jarvis, W. F. (2013). From SRI to ESG: The changing world of responsible investing. Commonfund Institute. 
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED559300.pdf 

Carroll, A. B. (2008). A history of corporate social responsibility: Concepts and practices. In A. Crane, D. Matten, A. McWilliams, J. Moon, & 
D. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 19–46). Oxford University Press. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199211593.003.0002 

Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38(3), 268–295. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/000765039903800303 

Christmann, P., & Taylor, G. (2006). Firm self-regulation through international certifiable standards: Determinants of symbolic versus 
substantive implementation. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 863–878. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400231 

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(1), 95–120. 
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2780243 

Commonfund. (2013). From SRI to ESG: The changing world of responsible investing. https://issuelab.org/resources/24314/24314.pdf 
Dathe, T., Helmold, M., Dathe, R., & Dathe, I. (2024). Implementing environmental, social and governance (ESG) principles for sustainable 

businesses: A practical guide in sustainability management. Springer International Publishing. 
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-52734-0 

Delai, I., & Takahashi, S. (2011). Sustainability measurement system: A reference model proposal. Social Responsibility Journal, 7(3), 438–471. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/17471111111154563 

Dunn, C., & Burton, B. K. (2006). Friedman’s “The social responsibility of business is to increase its profit”: A critique for the classroom. 
Management, 7. https://cedar.wwu.edu/mgmt_facpubs/7 

European Banking Authority (EBA). (2021). EBA report on management and supervision of ESG risks for credit institutions and investment firms. 
https://www.eba.europa.eu/sites/default/documents/fifiles/document_library/Publications/Reports/2021/1015656/EBA%20Re
port%20on%20ESG%20risks%20management%20and%20supervision.pdf 

European Banking Authority (EBAa). (2021). Environmental, social, and governance disclosures: Factsheet. 
https://www.eba.europa.eu/sites/default/documents/files/document_library/Publications/Consultations/2021/Consultation%20
on%20draft%20ITS%20on%20Pillar%20disclosures%20on%20ESG%20risk/963626/Factsheet%20-%20ESG%20disclosures.pdf 

European Commission (EC). (2022). Sustainability-related disclosure in financial services sector. https://finance.ec.europa.eu/sustainable-
finance/disclosures/sustainability-related-disclosure-financial-services-sector_en 

Eccles, R. G., Lee, L.-E., & Stroehle, J. C. (2019). The social origins of ESG: An analysis of Innovest and KLD. Organization & Environment, 
33(4), 575–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026619888994 

European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). (2022). Sustainable finance. https://www.esma.europa.eu/policy-activities/sustainable-
finance 

European Supervisory Authorities (ESA). (2021). Final report on draft regulatory technical standards. Joint Committee of the European 
Supervisory Authorities. 
https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/jc_2021_03_joint_esas_final_report_on_rts_under_sfdr.pdf 

Ethos. (2005). Indicators of corporate social responsibility. http://www.ethos.org.br 
Etzion, D., & Ferraro, F. (2010). The role of analogy in the institutionalization of sustainability reporting. Organization Science, 21(5), 1092–

1107. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0494 
FasterCapital. (2025). Transparent governance. https://fastercapital.com/keyword/transparent-governance.html 
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. (2005). A legal framework for the integration of environmental, social and governance issues into institutional 

investment: A report produced for the Asset Management Working Group of the UNEP. https://www.unepfi.org/wordpress/wp-
content/uploads/2022/07/Freshfields-A-legal-framework-for-the-integration-of-ESG-issues-into-institutional-investment.pdf 

Friedman, M. (2007). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. In W. C. Zimmerli, M. Holzinger, & K. Richter (Eds.), 
Corporate ethics and corporate governance (pp. 173–178). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70818-6_14 

Gilbert, D. U., & Rasche, A. (2007). Discourse ethics and social accountability: The ethics of SA 8000. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17(2), 187–
216. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27673172 

Gitman, L., Chorn, B., & Fargo, B. (2009). ESG in the mainstream: The role for companies and investors in environmental, social, and governance 
integration. Business for Social Responsibility (BSR). 
https://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR%20ESG%20Integration%20Report%20_Sept%202009_final.pdf 

Global Compact. (2004). Who cares wins: Connecting financial markets to a changing world. 
https://d306pr3pise04h.cloudfront.net/docs/issues_doc%2FFinancial_markets%2Fwho_cares_who_wins.pdf 

37. Grayson, D., & Nelson, J. (2013). Corporate responsibility coalitions: The past, present, and future of alliances for sustainable capitalism. 
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351277525 

Hasan, R. (2025). Sustainability accounting and reporting: Theory and practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003477617 
Hebb, T., Hawley, J., Hoepner, A., Neher, A., & Wood, D. (2015). The Routledge handbook of responsible investment. Routledge, Taylor & 

Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203104415 

https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2664547
https://www.afm.nl/nl-nl/professionals/onderwerpen/duurzaamheid-sfdr
https://www.afm.nl/nl-nl/professionals/onderwerpen/duurzaamheid-sfdr
https://npengage.com/companies/esg-history/
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.557
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3722087
https://books.google.com.bd/books?id=mLdLHhqxUb4C
https://doi.org/10.2307/1331920
https://www.proquest.com/docview/3067804988
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55613-6_2
https://ideas.repec.org/p/vlg/vlgwps/2009-26.html
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1021273
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.014
https://doi.org/10.3763/jsfi.2010.0004
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED559300.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199211593.003.0002
https://doi.org/10.1177/000765039903800303
https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400231
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2780243
https://issuelab.org/resources/24314/24314.pdf
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-52734-0
https://doi.org/10.1108/17471111111154563
https://cedar.wwu.edu/mgmt_facpubs/7
https://www.eba.europa.eu/sites/default/documents/fifiles/document_library/Publications/Reports/2021/1015656/EBA%20Report%20on%20ESG%20risks%20management%20and%20supervision.pdf
https://www.eba.europa.eu/sites/default/documents/fifiles/document_library/Publications/Reports/2021/1015656/EBA%20Report%20on%20ESG%20risks%20management%20and%20supervision.pdf
https://www.eba.europa.eu/sites/default/documents/files/document_library/Publications/Consultations/2021/Consultation%20on%20draft%20ITS%20on%20Pillar%20disclosures%20on%20ESG%20risk/963626/Factsheet%20-%20ESG%20disclosures.pdf
https://www.eba.europa.eu/sites/default/documents/files/document_library/Publications/Consultations/2021/Consultation%20on%20draft%20ITS%20on%20Pillar%20disclosures%20on%20ESG%20risk/963626/Factsheet%20-%20ESG%20disclosures.pdf
https://finance.ec.europa.eu/sustainable-finance/disclosures/sustainability-related-disclosure-financial-services-sector_en
https://finance.ec.europa.eu/sustainable-finance/disclosures/sustainability-related-disclosure-financial-services-sector_en
https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026619888994
https://www.esma.europa.eu/policy-activities/sustainable-finance
https://www.esma.europa.eu/policy-activities/sustainable-finance
https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/jc_2021_03_joint_esas_final_report_on_rts_under_sfdr.pdf
http://www.ethos.org.br/
https://fastercapital.com/keyword/transparent-governance.html
https://www.unepfi.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Freshfields-A-legal-framework-for-the-integration-of-ESG-issues-into-institutional-investment.pdf
https://www.unepfi.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Freshfields-A-legal-framework-for-the-integration-of-ESG-issues-into-institutional-investment.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70818-6_14
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27673172
https://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR%20ESG%20Integration%20Report%20_Sept%202009_final.pdf
https://d306pr3pise04h.cloudfront.net/docs/issues_doc%2FFinancial_markets%2Fwho_cares_who_wins.pdf
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351277525
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003477617
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203104415


Asian Business Research Journal, 2025, 10(6): 28-36 

36 
© 2025 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

Hirst, S. (2016). Social responsibility resolutions (Harvard Law School Program on Corporate Governance Discussion Paper No. 2016-06). 
https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2773367 

Huber, B. M., & Comstock, M. (2017). ESG reports and ratings: What they are, why they matter. Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate 
Governance. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2017/07/27/esg-reports-and-ratings-what-they-are-why-they-matter/ 

Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE). (2005). The sustainability metrics. http://www.icheme.org 
Idowu, S. O. (2015). S. In S. O. Idowu, N. Capaldi, M. Fifka, L. Zu, & R. Schmidpeter (Eds.), Dictionary of corporate social responsibility: CSR, 

sustainability, ethics & governance (pp. 191–192). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10536-9_19 
International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC). (2013). Consultation draft of the international IR framework. 

https://www.integratedreporting.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Consultation-Draft-of-the-InternationalIRFramework.pdf 
Jackson, K. (2010). Global corporate governance: Soft law and reputational accountability. Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 35(1), 42–

106. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1780964 
Jones, D. (2005). Dow Jones Sustainability World Indexes Guide (Version 7.0). http://www.sustainability-indexes.com 
Kapmeier, F., Greenspan, A., Jones, A., & Sterman, J. (2021). Science-based analysis for climate action: How HSBC Bank uses the En-ROADS 

climate policy simulation. System Dynamics Review, 37(4), 333–335. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1697 
Karim, R. (2024). Corporate governance. In Reference module in social sciences. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-443-13701-3.00036-0 
Kell, G. (2013). 12 years later: Reflections on the growth of the UN Global Compact. Business & Society, 52(1), 31–52. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650312460466 
Kell, G., & Levin, D. (2003). The Global Compact network: A historic experiment in learning and action. Business and Society Review, 108(2), 

151–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8594.00159 
Kolsi, M. C., & Muqattash, R. (2020). Board characteristics, ownership structure and corporate social responsibility disclosures: Evidence 

from ADX-listed companies. Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3801537 
KPMG International. (2013). GRI’s G4 guidelines: The impact on reporting. https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2013/06/g4-the-

impact-on-reporting-v2.pdf 
Levering, R., & Moskowitz, M. (1998). The 100 best companies to work for in America. Fortune, 137(1), 84–95. 
Levering, R., & Moskowitz, M. (2003). The 100 best companies to work for in America. Fortune, 147(1), 127–130. 
Li, T. T., Wang, K., Sueyoshi, T., & Wang, D. D. (2021). ESG: Research progress and future prospects. Sustainability, 13(21), 11663. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111663 
McLellan, B. C. (2014). Streamlining the use of legislated reporting to move to 'life of project' sustainability reporting. International Journal of 

Mining and Mineral Engineering, 5(1), 19–37. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMME.2014.058917 
Mendes, T., Braga, V., Correia, A., & Silva, C. (2023). Linking corporate social responsibility, cooperation and innovation: The triple bottom 

line perspective. Innovation & Management Review, 20(3), 244–280. https://doi.org/10.1108/INMR-03-2021-0039 
Odell, J., & Ali, U. (2016). ESG investing in emerging and frontier markets. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 28(2), 96–101. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/jacf.12181 
Odera, O., Scott, A. H., & Gow, J. (2016). Factors influencing corporate social and environmental disclosures: A systematic review. 

International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 11(2), 116–134. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBGE.2016.078199 
Ortas, E., Álvarez, I., & Garayar, A. (2015). The environmental, social, governance, and financial performance effects on companies that 

adopt the United Nations Global Compact. Sustainability, 7, 1932–1956. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7021932 
Ostas, D. T. (2004). Cooperate, comply, or evade? A corporate executive’s social responsibilities with regard to law. American Business Law 

Journal, 41(4), 559–594. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1714.2004.04104004.x 
Pavan, A., & Kreuze, J. G. (2022). The SASB and sustainability standards. Strategic Finance. https://sfmagazine.com/post-entry/september-

2022-the-sasb-and-sustainability-standards/ 
Pollman, E. (2021). Corporate social responsibility, ESG, and compliance. All Faculty Scholarship, 2568. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108759458.045 
Preqin. (2022). Historical timeline of ESG. https://www.preqin.com/preqin-academy/lesson-5-esg/history-of-esg 
Rasche, A., & Gilbert, D. U. (2012). Institutionalizing global governance: The role of the United Nations Global Compact. Business Ethics: A 

European Review, 21(1), 100–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2011.01642.x 
Rasche, A., Waddock, S., & McIntosh, M. (2012). The United Nations Global Compact: Retrospect and prospect. Business & Society, 52(1), 6–

30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650312459999 (Original work published 2013) 
Robati, M., & Rezaei, F. (2022). Applying the sustainability barometer approach to assess urban sustainability. Urban Science, 6(4), 85. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci6040085 
Roncalli, T. (2024). Handbook of sustainable finance. Université Paris-Saclay. https://mpra.ub.uni-

muenchen.de/123868/1/MPRA_paper_123868.pdf 
Sampei, H. (2018). ESG awareness is an enduring legacy of the global financial crisis. Fidelity International. 

https://www.fidelityinternational.com/editorial/blog/pesg-awareness-is-an-enduring-legacy-of-the-global-financial-crisisp-
a5a9f2-en5/ 

Sarfraz, M., Ozturk, I., Yoo, S., Raza, M. A., & Han, H. (2023). Toward a new understanding of environmental and financial performance 
through corporate social responsibility, green innovation, and sustainable development. Humanities and Social Sciences 
Communications, 10, 297. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01799-4 

Sherwood, M. W., & Pollard, J. (2018). Responsible investing: An introduction to environmental, social, and governance investments. Taylor & 
Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203712078 

72. Sjåfjell, B., & Richardson, B. J. (2015). Company law and sustainability: Legal barriers and opportunities. Cambridge University Press. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107337978 

The New Humanitarian. (2006, November 16). Continue supporting Africa, Annan urges. 
https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news/2006/11/16 

Townsend, B. (2020). From SRI to ESG: The origins of socially responsible and sustainable investing. The Journal of Impact and ESG 
Investing, 1(1), 10–25. https://doi.org/10.3905/jesg.2020.1.1.010 

United Nations. (1999, January 31). Secretary-General address to the World Economic Forum in Davos [Press Release SG/SM/6881]. 
https://www.un.org/press/en/1999/19990131.sgsm6881.html 

UKPACT. (2022). Getting started on TCFD: A practical guide to environmental stewardship. 
https://www.sec.or.th/TH/Documents/OneReport/TCFD_Roadmaps_EN.pdf 

UNPRI. (2010). UN Principles for Responsible Investment 2010 implementation report. 
https://www.caissedesdepots.fr/fileadmin/PDF/03._developpement_durable/caisse_des_depots_reporting_pri_2010_english_01.
pdf 

Valls Martínez, M. D. C., Martín-Cervantes, P. A., & Peña Rodríguez, S. (2021). Ethical banking and poverty alleviation banking: The two 
sides of the same solidary coin. Sustainability, 13(21), 11977. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111977 

Wang, L. (2005). A methodology of sustainability, accountability and management for industrial enterprises (Master’s thesis). State University of 
New York at Buffalo. 

 

https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2773367
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2017/07/27/esg-reports-and-ratings-what-they-are-why-they-matter/
http://www.icheme.org/
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10536-9_19
https://www.integratedreporting.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Consultation-Draft-of-the-InternationalIRFramework.pdf
https://ssrn.com/abstract=1780964
http://www.sustainability-indexes.com/
https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1697
https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-443-13701-3.00036-0
https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650312460466
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8594.00159
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3801537
https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2013/06/g4-the-impact-on-reporting-v2.pdf
https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2013/06/g4-the-impact-on-reporting-v2.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1108/INMR-03-2021-0039
https://doi.org/10.1111/jacf.12181
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBGE.2016.078199
https://sfmagazine.com/post-entry/september-2022-the-sasb-and-sustainability-standards/
https://sfmagazine.com/post-entry/september-2022-the-sasb-and-sustainability-standards/
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108759458.045
https://www.preqin.com/preqin-academy/lesson-5-esg/history-of-esg
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2011.01642.x
https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650312459999
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/123868/1/MPRA_paper_123868.pdf
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/123868/1/MPRA_paper_123868.pdf
https://www.fidelityinternational.com/editorial/blog/pesg-awareness-is-an-enduring-legacy-of-the-global-financial-crisisp-a5a9f2-en5/
https://www.fidelityinternational.com/editorial/blog/pesg-awareness-is-an-enduring-legacy-of-the-global-financial-crisisp-a5a9f2-en5/
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01799-4
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203712078
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107337978
https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news/2006/11/16
https://doi.org/10.3905/jesg.2020.1.1.010
https://www.un.org/press/en/1999/19990131.sgsm6881.html
https://www.sec.or.th/TH/Documents/OneReport/TCFD_Roadmaps_EN.pdf
https://www.caissedesdepots.fr/fileadmin/PDF/03._developpement_durable/caisse_des_depots_reporting_pri_2010_english_01.pdf
https://www.caissedesdepots.fr/fileadmin/PDF/03._developpement_durable/caisse_des_depots_reporting_pri_2010_english_01.pdf
https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111977

