Development and Psychometric Properties of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Standards Perceived by Workers, Managers, and Executives
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Purpose: Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) benchmarks, introduced in the early 2000s as a complement to corporate social responsibility (CSR), assess the environmental sustainability, societal impact, and ethical responsibility of organizational operations. Despite the growing importance of ESG and the development of various financial metrics, there remains a shortage of empirically validated scales to measure stakeholders' perceptions of these benchmarks. This study aims to develop and validate the ESG-Perception scale, focusing on internal stakeholders such as employees, managers, and executives.
Method: The study sampled employees/workers (N = 300) with a mean age of 42.44 years (SD = 13.18) and managers and executives (N = 302) with a mean age of 37.93 years (SD = 10.38). There were more female employee/worker participants (n = 163, 54.5%) than male participants (n = 136, 45.5%), while there were more male manager and executive participants (n = 163, 54.2%) than female participants (n = 138, 45.8%). The majority of employees/workers identified as White/Caucasian (61%, n = 183), similar to the majority of managers and executives, who identified as White/Caucasian (62.3%, n = 188). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using employee/worker data was conducted to examine the factor structure of ESG-Perception, while confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models—including single-factor, first-order, and bi-factor models—were used with manager and executive data to validate the scale’s factor structure and dimensionality. Measurement invariance across gender and race was also tested to ensure the equivalence of the factor structure. The study further assessed the scale’s convergent and discriminant validity.
Results: The ESG-Perception scale effectively captured internal stakeholders' perceptions of ESG benchmarks. A multidimensional, three-factor structure was identified, which aligned with the data. The factor structure was invariant across gender and race, allowing for comparisons of latent means across these groups. Convergent validity indicated that perceptions of diversity and inclusion, personality, leadership qualities, and styles influenced endorsement of ESG standards. With the exception of the Environmental and Governance constructs in the data for managers and executives, clear discriminant validity was observed for the scale’s constructs, demonstrating their distinct conceptual boundaries. However, the absence of discriminant validity between the Environmental and Governance constructs indicated overlapping conceptual dimensions, which is particularly indicative of industries where governance practices and environmental performance are closely linked. The bifactor models demonstrated both multidimensionality and unidimensionality for the scale.
Conclusions: The ESG-Perception scale contributes to the body of knowledge on sustainability, corporate social responsibility, and ethical responsibility. It supports the application of Stakeholder and Upper Echelons theories and provides valuable insights into how internal stakeholders perceive ESG principles. Knowledge derived from its use can enhance ESG advocacy and help organizations develop effective strategies for adopting, implementing, and complying with ESG frameworks. This can promote transparency, sustainability, and improve corporate practices and outcomes. Despite exhibiting both unidimensional and multidimensional characteristics, the choice of whether to treat the scale as unidimensional or multidimensional will depend on the specific research goals and context.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don't know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932-968. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311436079
Agustina, L., & Sudibyo, Y. A. (2022). Does financial performance moderate the effect of CEO characteristics and stakeholder influence on corporate social responsibility in Indonesia? Technium Business and Management, 2(1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.47577/business.v2i1.5995
Amel-Zadeh, A., & Serafeim, G. (2018). Why and how investors use ESG information: Evidence from a global survey. Financial Analysts Journal, 74(3), 87-103. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2925310
Bansal, P., & Song, H. C. (2017). Similar but not the same: Differentiating corporate sustainability from corporate responsibility. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 105-149. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0095
Berg, F., Kölbel, J. F., & Rigobon, R. (2022). Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG ratings. Review of Finance, 26(6), 1315-1344. https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfac033
Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 149, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
Bosch-Badia, M. , Montllor-Serrats, J. and Tarrazon-Rodon, M. (2014). Corporate social responsibility from the viewpoint of social risk. Theoretical Economics Letters, 4, 639-648. doi: 10.4236/tel.2014.48081.
Bozionelos, N., & Simmering, M. J. (2022). Methodological threat or myth? Evaluating the current state of evidence on common method variance in human resource management research. Human Resource Management Journal, 32(1), 194–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12398
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595-616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38(3), 268-295. https://doi.org/10.1177/000765039903800303
Changar, M., & Atan, T. (2021). The influence of transformational and transactional leadership styles on CSR-related outcomes in financial services companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 169(4), 601–616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04298-y
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464-504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
Cheung, G. W., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Lau, R. S., & et al. (2024). Reporting reliability, convergent, and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 41(3), 745–783. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-023-09871-y
Cho, C. H., Laine, M., Roberts, R. W., & Rodrigue, M. (2015). Organized hypocrisy, organizational façades, and sustainability reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 40, 78-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2014.12.003
Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Crane, A., Henriques, I., Husted, B. W., & Matten, D. (2017). Measuring corporate social responsibility and impact: Enhancing quantitative research design and methods in business and society research. Business & Society, 56(6), 787-795. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650317713267
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.
Cronbach, L. J. (1984). A research worker's treasure chest. Multivariate behavioral research, 19(2-3), 223-240.
de Souza Barbosa, A., da Silva, M. C. B. C., da Silva, L. B., Morioka, S. N., & de Souza, V. F. (2023). Integration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria: Their impacts on corporate sustainability performance. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01919-0
Del Baldo, M. (2019). Acting as a benefit corporation and a B Corp to responsibly pursue private and public benefits. The case of Paradisi Srl (Italy). International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 4(4), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-019-0042-y
Delmas, M. A., & Toffel, M. W. (2008). Organizational responses to environmental demands: Opening the black box. Strategic Management Journal, 29(10), 1027-1055. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.701
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9503271992
Donkor, A., Trireksani, T., & Djajadikerta, H. G. (2023). Board diversity and corporate sustainability performance: Do CEO power and firm environmental sensitivity matter? Sustainability, 15(23), 16142. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152316142
Dueber, D. M. (2017). Bifactor indices calculator: A Microsoft Excel-based tool to calculate various indices relevant to bifactor CFA models. https://doi.org/10.13023/edp.tool.01. Retrieved June 24, 2023 from https://uknowledge.uky.edu/edp_tools/1/
Eccles, R. G., & Klimenko, S. (2019). The Investor Revolution. Harvard Business Review, 97(3), 106-116.
Eccles, R. G., & Krzus, M. P. (2010). One Report: Integrated Reporting for a Sustainable Strategy. John Wiley & Sons.
Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science, 60(11), 2835-2857. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1984
Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. New Society Publishers.
Ernawan, K., & Daniel, D. R. (2019). The influence of CEO narcissism on corporate social responsibility disclosure. Jurnal Akuntansi, 23(2), 253-268. https://doi.org/10.24912/ja.v23i2.587
European Commission. (2011). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A renewed EU strategy 2011-14 for Corporate Social Responsibility. COM(2011) 681 final.
European Commission. (2020). Corporate sustainability reporting directive (CSRD). https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/company-reporting-and-auditing/company-reporting/corporate-sustainability-reporting_en
Ferro-Soto, C., Macías-Quintana, L. A., & Vázquez-Rodríguez, P. (2018). Effect of stakeholders-oriented behavior on the performance of sustainable business. Sustainability, 10(12), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124724
Follingstad, D. R., & Rogers, M. J. (2013). Validity concerns in the measurement of women’s and men’s report of intimate partner violence. Sex Roles, 69(3-4), 149-167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0264-5
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman Publishing Inc.
Freeman, R. E., & Dmytriyev, S. (2017). Corporate Social Responsibility and Stakeholder Theory: Learning From Each Other. Symphonya. Emerging Issues in Management, (1), 7-15. doi: https://doi.org/10.4468/2017.1.02freeman.dmytriyev
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge University Press.
Friede, G., Busch, T., & Bassen, A. (2015). ESG and financial performance: Aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5(4), 210-233. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2015.1118917
Fuller, C. M., Simmering, M. J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y., & Babin, B. J. (2016). Common methods variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3192-3198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008
Gao, Q., Gao, L., Long, D., & Wang, Y. (2023). Influence of narcissistic CEOs on corporate social responsibility (CSR) choices: The moderating role of the legal environment. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 16, 3199-3217. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S414685
Gillan, S. L., & Starks, L. T. (2000). Corporate governance proposals and shareholder activism: The role of institutional investors. Journal of Financial Economics, 57(2), 275-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(00)00058-1
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504-528. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1
Gregorich, S. E. (2006). Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework. Medical Care, 44(11 Suppl 3), S78-94. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000245454
Hafsi, T., & Turgut, G. (2013). Boardroom diversity and its effect on social performance: Conceptualization and empirical evidence. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(3), 463-479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1272-z
Hahn, R., & Kühnen, M. (2013). Determinants of sustainability reporting: A review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 59, 5-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005
Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. The Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 334–343. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159303
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193-206. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1984.4277628
Harjoto, M., Laksmana, I., & Lee, R. (2015). Board diversity and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(4), 641-660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2343-0
Harman, D. (1967). A single factor test of common method variance. The Journal of Psychology, 35, 359-378.
Hasan, M. B., Verma, R., Sharma, D., Moghalles, S. A. M., & Hasan, S. A. S. (2024). The impact of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practices on customer behavior towards the brand in light of digital transformation: Perceptions of university students. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2371063
Hawn, O., & Ioannou, I. (2016). Mind the gap: The interplay between external and internal actions in the case of corporate social responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 37(13), 2569-2588. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2464
Henisz, W. J., Dorobantu, S., & Nartey, L. J. (2014). Spinning gold: The financial returns to stakeholder engagement. Strategic Management Journal, 35(12), 1727-1748. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2180
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424-453. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424
Husted, B. W., & Allen, D. B. (2007). Strategic corporate social responsibility and value creation among large firms: Lessons from the Spanish experience. Long Range Planning, 40(6), 594–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2007.07.008
IBM Corp. (2021). IBM SPSS statistics for Windows, Version 28.0. IBM Corp.
Jensen, U. T., Andersen, L. B., Bro, L. L., Bøllingtoft, A., Eriksen, T. L. M., Holten, A., … Würtz, A. (2019). Conceptualizing and measuring transformational and transactional leadership. Administration & Society, 51(1), 3–33. doi: 10.1177/0095399716667157
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (5th ed.). Guilford Publications.
KPMG (2020). The time has come: The KPMG survey of sustainability reporting 2020. https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/insights/2020/11/the-time-has-come-survey-of-sustainability-reporting.html
Kyriazos, T. A. (2018). Applied psychometrics: Sample size and sample power considerations in factor analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in general. Psychology, 9, 2207-2230. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2018.98126
Langlois, L., Lapointe, C., Valois, P., & de Leeuw, A. (2014). Development and validity of the ethical leadership questionnaire. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(3), 310-331. doi: 10.1108/JEA-10-2012-0110
Liu, M., Luo, X., & Lu, W.-Z. (2023). Public perceptions of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) based on social media data: Evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 387, 135840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135840
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130-149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130
Matos, P. (2020, August). ESG and responsible institutional investing around the world: A critical review. CFA Institute Research Foundation Literature Reviews, 1-82.
Matsunaga, M. (2010). How to factor-analyze your data right: Do’s, don’ts, and how-to’s. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 97-110. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.854
Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). "Implicit" and "explicit" CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404-424. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.31193458
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Erlbaum.
Meade, A. W., Johnson, E. C., & Braddy, P. W. (2008). Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 568-592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.568
Menghwar, P. S., & Daood, A. (2021). Creating shared value: A systematic review, synthesis and integrative perspective. International Journal of Management Reviews, 23(4), 466-485. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12252
Milfont, T. L., & Duckitt, J. (2010). The Environmental Attitudes Inventory: A valid and reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 80–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.09.001
Moisescu, O. I. (2015). Development and validation of a measurement scale for customers’ perceptions of corporate social responsibility. Management and Marketing Journal, 13(2), 311-331.
Mukherjee, K. (2022). CEO personality & stakeholder engagement. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 2385. https://egrove.olemiss.edu/etd/2385
Muthén, B., Kaplan, D., & Hollis, M. (1987). On structural equation modeling with data that are not missing completely at random. Psychometrika, 52(3), 431-462. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294365
Nazari, M., Nezami, I. M., & Zargar, Z. H. E. (2022). The journey from corporate social responsibility to corporate social innovation: The whys and the hows. Technium Business and Management, 2(2), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.47577/business.v2i2.6539
Öberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B. B., Murphy, P. E., & Gruber, V. (2014). Consumers’ perceptions of corporate social responsibility: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(1), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1787-y
Oh, H. J., Lee, B., Ma, H. H., Jang, D., & Park, S. (2024). A preliminary study for developing perceived ESG scale to measure public perception toward organizations’ ESG performance. Public Relations Review, 50(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2023.102398
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403-441. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840603024003910
Osei, F., Yankah, R. ., Agyapong, J., & Owusu-Mensah, S. . (2022). The effect of corporate governance elements on employee performance: evident form Ghanaian banking industry. Technium Business and Management, 2(3), 6–22. https://techniumscience.com/index.php/business/article/view/7099
Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell, L., & Colle, S. d. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 403-445. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2010.495581
Petrenko, O. V., Aime, F., Ridge, J., & Hill, A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility or CEO narcissism? CSR motivations and organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1206–1234. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0321
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62-77.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (December 2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78-92. https://hbr.org/2006/12/strategy-and-society-the-link-between-competitive-advantage-and-corporate-social-responsibility
Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) (n.d.). What is responsible investment? https://www.unpri.org/introductory-guides-to-responsible-investment/what-is-responsible-investment/4780.article
Reise, S. P., Bonifay, W. E., & Haviland, M. G. (2013). Scoring and modeling psychological measures in the presence of multidimensionality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(2), 129-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.725437
Reise, S. P., Moore, T. M., & Haviland, M. G. (2010). Bifactor models and rotations: Exploring the extent to which multidimensional data yield univocal scale scores. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92, 544-559. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.496477
Reise, S. P., Scheines, R., Widaman, K. F., & Haviland, M. G. (2012). Multidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in structural equation modeling. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(1), 5-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164412449831
Richardson, H. A., Simmering, M. J., & Sturman, M. C. (2009). A tale of three perspectives: Examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance. Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 762-800. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109332834
Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016a). Applying bifactor statistical indices in the evaluation of psychological measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(3), 223-237. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1089249
Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016b). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21(2), 137-150. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000045
Romano, M., Cirillo, A., Favino, C., & Netti, A. (2020). ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) performance and board gender diversity: The moderating role of CEO duality. Sustainability, 12, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219298
Romansky, L., Garrod, M., Brown, K., & Deo, K. (2021, May). How to measure inclusion in the workplace. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/05/how-to-measure-inclusion-in-the-workplace
Rönkkö, M., & Cho, E. (2022). An updated guideline for assessing discriminant validity. Organizational Research Methods, 25(1), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120968614
Rutkowski, L., & Svetina, D. (2014). Assessing the hypothesis of measurement invariance in the context of large-scale international surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74(1), 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413498257
Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 899-931. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00950.x
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shapira-Lishchinsky, O. (2018). Ethical aspects of transactional, transformational, and authentic leadership styles. In International Aspects of Organizational Ethics in Educational Systems (pp. 43-45). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78714-777-520181011
Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 936-960. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9512280026
Šimanskienė, L., & Župerkienė, E. (2014). Sustainable leadership: The new challenge for organizations. Forum Scientiae Oeconomia, 2(1), 81-93.
StataCorp. (2021). Stata Statistical Software: Release 17. StataCorp LLC.
Steiger, J. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 893–898. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. paid. 2006. 09. 017
Stucky, B. D., & Edelen, M. O. (2015). Using hierarchical IRT models to create unidimensional measures from multidimensional data. In S. P. Reise & D. A. Revicki (Eds.), Handbook of item response theory modeling: Applications to typical performance assessment (pp. 183–206). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Surroca, J., Tribó, J. A., & Waddock, S. (2010). Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The role of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31(5), 463-490. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.820
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.
Tehseen, S., Ramayah, T., & Sajilan, S. (2017). Testing and controlling for common method variance: A review of available methods. Journal of Management Sciences, 4, 142-168. https://doi.org/10.20547/jms.2014.1704202
Timmons, A. C. (2010). Establishing factorial invariance for multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis (KU Guide No. 22.1).
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). The reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1-10.
Turker, D. (2009). Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale development study. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(4), 411-427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9780-6
Tziner, A., & Persoff, M. (2024). The interplay between ethics, justice, corporate social responsibility, and performance management sustainability. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, Article 1323910. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1323910
van de Schoot, R., Lugtig, P., & Hox, J. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(4), 486-492. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.686740
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4-70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002
Verheyden, T., Eccles, R. G., & Feiner, A. (2016). ESG for all? The impact of ESG screening on return, risk, and diversification. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 28(2), 47-55. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2834790
Villalba-Ríos, P., Barroso-Castro, C., & Vecino-Gravel, J. D. (2022). The influence of CEO profile on corporate social responsibility companies: A qualitative comparative analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(2), 356-366. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2205
Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303-319. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199704)18:4<303::AID-SMJ869>3.0.CO;2-G
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34(1), 89-126. doi: 10.1177/0149206307308913
Wang, H., Tong, L., Takeuchi, R., & George, G. (2016). Corporate social responsibility: An overview and new research directions. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2), 534-544. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.5001
Widaman, K. F., Ferrer, E., & Conger, R. D. (2010). Factorial invariance within longitudinal structural equation models: Measuring the same construct across time. Child Development Perspectives, 4(1), 10-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00110.x
Wood, D. J. (2010). Measuring corporate social performance: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 50-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00274.x
World Economic Forum (n.d.). Explore the Metrics. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/stakeholdercapitalism/our-metrics
World Economic Forum (September 2020). Measuring stakeholder capitalism: Towards common metrics and consistent reporting of sustainable value creation. Retrieved from https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_IBC_Measuring_Stakeholder_Capitalism_Report_2020.pdf
Wu, L. Z., Kwan, H. K., Yim, F. H. K., Chiu, R. K., & He, X. (2015). CEO ethical leadership and corporate social responsibility: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(4), 819-831. doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2108-9
Yau, O. H., Chow, R. P., Sin, L. Y., Tse, A. C., Luk, C. L., & Lee, J. S. (2007). Developing a scale for stakeholder orientation. European Journal of Marketing, 41(11/12), 1306-1327. doi:10.1108/03090560710821198
Zhu, J., & Huang, F. (2023). Transformational leadership, organizational innovation, and ESG performance: Evidence from SMEs in China. Sustainability, 15(7), 5756. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075756