Integrating ESG and organisational resilience through system theory: the ESGOR matrix

Luna Leoni

Management Decision

ISSN: 0025-1747

Open Access. Article publication date: 16 April 2024

Issue publication date: 13 February 2025

550

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to develop a conceptual framework that jointly considers Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) factors and organisational resilience (OR) components to ameliorate organisations' understanding of sustainability’s overall requirements and related decision-making processes.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper combines ESG and OR through a 3x3 conceptual matrix, where ESG factors are listed along the vertical axis and OR components along the horizontal axis. This results in nine quadrants, which have been read according to two arrangements: (1) static, looking at the specific characteristics of each single quadrant, and (2) dynamic, investigating the relationships between the different quadrants according to the system theory (ST) lens.

Findings

The integration between ESG and OR results in nine organisational typologies, each characterised by a specific focus: (1) green visioning, (2) eco ethos, (3) climate guard, (4) inclusive strategy, (5) empathy ethos, (6) community shield, (7) ethical blueprint, (8) integrity ethos and (9) compliance guard. These typologies and related focuses determine the different strategic options of organisations, the decision-making emphasis concerning ESG factors and OR components and the organisation’s behaviour concerning its internal and external environment. According to ST, the nine typologies interact with each other, emphasising the existence of interconnectedness, interdependence and cascading effects between ESG and OR.

Originality/value

The paper represents a unique attempt to interrelate ESG factors and OR components according to a ST lens, emphasising the dynamic nature of their interactions and organisations’ need for continuous adaptation and learning to make decisions that create sustainable long-term value.

Keywords

Citation

Leoni, L. (2025), "Integrating ESG and organisational resilience through system theory: the ESGOR matrix", Management Decision, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 401-422. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-10-2023-1924

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2024, Luna Leoni

License

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode


1. Introduction

“Environmental, Social and Governance” (ESG) refers to three central factors for evaluating the sustainability of an investment (; ; ) and is rooted in the concept of the “Triple Bottom Line” (TBL) introduced by Elkington in , which emphasises the importance of “People, Planet, Profits” (PPP) (), stressing that companies should not focus only on “Profits”, but on each of the three “P”, which are equally significant to the sustainability of any business mission ().

At its core, the concept behind ESG is straightforward: companies are more likely to be successful and generate excellent returns if they create value for all stakeholders (i.e. employees, customers, suppliers, and society at large, including the environment), not just for their owners (; ). Thus, ESG analysis focuses on how companies operate in society and how this affects their performance. In this vein, numerous studies have shown how ESG, and thus aspects such as climate change and gender equality, are crucial for the value creation of current firms (; ). In essence, ESG factors are widely recognised as key drivers of organisational sustainability, responsible business practices, and stakeholder trust.

At the same time, sustainability concepts like TBL, related investments, and connected companies’ performance have increasingly been connected to the concepts of organisational resilience (OR), understood as the organisations' ability to anticipate, absorb, and recover from shocks, becoming stronger (; ; ; ). According to , OR is not a static attribute but a set of capabilities organisations develop to cope with unexpected events (; ). In other words, OR requires time to develop and evolve through time; thus, it needs a dynamic and long-term approach (; ). In this vein, it is worth noting that this approach is usually neglected in ESG studies. In fact, “most research tests for a direct, causal, and immediate impact on business outcomes of these responsible actions” (p. 1615) and “analyze financial performance within one year of the activity, taking data from specific years” (, p. 1628).

Moreover, the growing pace of the catastrophic events of recent years (e.g. the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ukraine–Russia war, and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict) has made it clear that the analysis of ESG factors alone is not sufficient (; ) but must be accompanied by the analysis of further variables to assess organisations' capacity to effectively recover, adapt, and grow in the face of shocks, namely, OR (; ; ).

In this regard, practitioners have already underlined the crucial role that resilience may play in the ESG context. In this vein, , in their article published in the World Economic Forum, state “Until businesses and investors embrace an approach where resilience is a consistent thread running through ESG, they will remain ill-equipped to rebound most effectively from the crises that inevitably lie in our future”. In line with this, it is the action “Promote a ‘Think Resilience’ approach to all financial investments” that the has recommended to G20: make resilience a baseline requirement for investments to ensure that investments are not only sustainable but also resilient.

However, has verified that most organisations still have to recognise a direct link between ESG and resilience. Moreover, apart from measurement frameworks, a theoretical one able to properly combine ESG factors and OR components according to a holistic understanding of them and their relationships is still missing.

According to the above, combining OR with ESG appears to be indispensable as well as beneficial for organisations because it encourages a more holistic understanding of sustainable practices within them (; ) whilst providing comprehensive guidelines for their sustainable management, corporate governance strategies, and investment/company performance (; ; ; ; ).

Thus, this research aims to reach this goal by developing a conceptual framework that jointly considers ESG factors and Organisational Resilience (OR) components to ameliorate organisations' understanding of sustainability overall requirements and related decision-making processes by adopting the System Theory (ST) lens.

Results provide a 3x3 conceptual matrix, where ESG factors are listed along the vertical axis and OR components along the horizontal axis, identifying nine organisational typologies that identify the organisational decision-making emphasis concerning ESG factors and OR components. Moreover, thanks to the adoption of the ST lens, the ESGOR matric dynamic view shows how every decision regarding ESG factors and OR components does not operate in isolation. Still, they influence each other at different levels, with ripple effects throughout the larger organisational system.

Thus, the main contributions of this work relate to the creation of the ESGOR matrix that makes clear the cruciality of accompanying the analysis of ESG with OR, as recently suggested by and , to provide a clear picture of the organisations of our time (). Furthermore, the provided matrix underscores the importance of stakeholder engagement and influence (; ), encouraging organisations to actively engage with them to foster the integration of ESG and OR. Moreover, by adopting the ST lens, this study’s results are in line with and reinforce previous studies (e.g. ; ; ) calling for the adoption of a dynamic and long-term approach to ESG and OR. Lastly, by adopting and adapting the ST’s cyclic procedure of input-throughput-output-feedback () to the ESGOR matrix, organisations can evaluate their current position, identify areas for improvement, and develop strategies that integrate ESG factors and OR components, making decisions that align with sustainability goals, stakeholder expectations, and long-term value creation.

2. Theoretical background

2.1 ESG factors

ESG factors in today’s business landscape have emerged as critical for sustainable and responsible corporate practices, highlighting the pressing need to transition to a fair, responsible, and sustainable economy. The United Nations Report, titled “Who Cares Wins. Connecting Financial Markets to a Changing World”, is widely considered the first mainstream mention of ESG in the modern context. Accordingly, from a business point of view, ESG can be regarded as a broad set of activities that organisations can undertake to promote sustainability and make their efforts to be good corporate citizens transparent; whilst, from an investor point of view, ESG can be considered as set of metrics – involving environmental, social and governance factors analyses – through which determine programs, funds, and companies to invest in. ESG factors are currently considered one of the most reasonable ways for organisations and investors to balance sustainability, responsibility, and profitability ().

Going deeper into the analysis of ESG factors, it is possible to state that the Environmental dimension revolves around an organisation’s ecological impact. This includes organisations’ efforts to reduce carbon emissions, manage waste responsibly, conserve natural resources, promote renewable energy sources, habitat conservation, and the like (; ; ; ). In other words, organisations should embrace strong environmental practices to mitigate environmental risks and yield long-term success (; ).

The Social dimension of ESG, instead, focuses on an organisation’s impact on society, encompassing areas such as employees’ well-being, community development, customer relations, supply chain responsibility, guaranteeing diversity and inclusion practices and respect for human rights (; ; ; ). Embracing socially oriented practices enhances an organisation’s reputation, fosters customer loyalty, attracts and retains talented employees, and strengthens community relationships, positively contributing not only to society but also to the organisation’s financial performance (; ; ).

Lastly, the Governance dimension pertains to an organisation’s internal structures, policies, and practices that govern decision-making processes, accountability, and transparency (). Effective governance ensures ethical behaviour, minimises conflicts of interest, and protects the interests of shareholders by aligning them with management behaviour (; ; ). Organisations with robust governance practices, such as independent boards, diverse leadership, and executive compensation alignment, have been associated with improved financial performance (; ).

According to the above, organisations are encouraged to rethink and reshape their business model, priorities, and purposes in a greener and more responsible way (; ; ). This allows them to improve their reputation and enhance stakeholder trust, increasing customer loyalty, employee engagement, and investor confidence (). In this vein, it is worth mentioning that organisations integrating ESG factors can attract socially responsible investors who prioritise sustainability and responsible practices (). Moreover, ESG practices can drive innovation and operational efficiency, enabling organisations to capitalise on emerging opportunities and navigate regulatory changes effectively (), safeguarding the organisation’s long-term viability () and improving its financial performance (; ; ).

2.2 Organisational Resilience

In the current rapidly changing world, marked by unpredictable economic shifts, technological disruptions, geopolitical changes, and global challenges like pandemics and wars, Organisational Resilience (OR) represents a pivotal cornerstone of strategic management (; ). It is the capability of an organisation to be prepared for adversity and survive – potentially even reinforce – by dynamically reinventing its business models and strategies (; ; ). In other words, resilient organisations can anticipate potential threats, cope effectively with challenging environmental conditions, and learn from these events (; ; ; ).

OR encompasses multiple dimensions; however, according to ICOR (The International Consortium for Organisational Resilience), it may be considered as composed of three main dimensions, as described below:

  1. Leadership and Strategy. OR is notably augmented and enriched when in an organisation there is: (1) shared vision, according to which all organisation’s members exhibit a clear comprehension of the organisational purpose, vision, and values; (2) contexts understanding, which means that the organisation possesses an exhaustive grasp of both its intrinsic characteristics and the extrinsic factors influencing its operations; and, (3) effective leaders, which means leaders are empowered, trusted and respected, and leadership is distributed throughout the organisation, promoting a decentralised approach to decision-making and authority ();

  2. Culture and Behaviours. OR is increased and enhanced when core values and behaviours support the health and welfare of organisations’ employees, fostering their creativity and empowering them to communicate successfully, enabling effective decision-making (). In this vein, fostering a culture that encourages adaptability, innovation, and learning is vital for OR ();

  3. Preparedness and Managing Risk. OR increase when organisations intentionally manage risk and prepare for the unexpected. This is possible when the organisation has adequate and available resources, ad hoc risk management systems, and the ability to anticipate, plan, and respond to mutable circumstances and unpredictable events ().

At the same time, multiple elements can affect OR, such as corporate social responsibility (CSR) and social entrepreneurship (), corporate sustainability and purpose (), soft lean practices (), making OR’s successful factors both challenging and crucial to identify for contemporary businesses ().

In conclusion, OR can be understood as a multifaceted concept (), an interplay of strategy, culture, processes, and leadership that emerges – in the current competitive environment – as a key differentiator between organisations that merely survive and those that thrive by adapting ().

2.3 System theory

Systems theory (ST) views organisations as complex systems composed of interrelated components, which should be viewed holistically, considering their interrelations (). In other words, ST posits that everything is interconnected within a whole, where individual components influence one another. When examining organisations through this lens, it becomes evident that every decision, action, or policy does not operate in isolation; instead, they have ripple effects throughout the larger organisational system (; ; ).

ST is founded on the principles of interconnectedness, holistic viewpoints, and dynamic interactions; thus, it offers a robust paradigm for investigating ESG and OR phenomena through a holistic approach, allowing the analysis of their possible synergies and, therefore, impact on organisational decision-making. This lens enables considering an organisation in continuous interaction with its internal components, stakeholders, and the general environment. These interactions are characterised by feedback loops, which highlight how actions within a system lead to reactions that might influence the initial action point. For organisations, understanding feedback loops is crucial for decision-making. In fact, by recognising that choices made in one area (e.g. environmental practices) can have cascading effects on other areas (e.g. stakeholder relations or regulatory compliance), organisations can: (1) anticipate potential challenges and opportunities; (2) allocate resources more effectively; (3) align short-term actions with long-term goals. For example, imagine that a company faces raw material scarcity due to climate change. This, in turn, strains relationships with stakeholders, like suppliers and customers. This tests the organisation’s resilience, as it needs to adapt to the new situation by sourcing alternative materials or changing some product characteristics. In other words, this will affect the decision-making processes within the organisations.

Thus, according to ST, ESG and OR can be considered as interacting parts of a system (i.e. an organisation) which cannot be viewed in isolation, as single components, but need to be jointly contemplated to fully understand the system as a whole.

In conclusion, ST – due to its emphasis on interconnectedness and holistic understanding – seems to offer a powerful lens for discovering the possible interactions between ESG factors and OR components, allowing for more informed, strategic, and sustainable decisions (i.e. refining the decision-making processes).

3. Combining ESG and or: a conceptual matrix

According to and , this paper provides a conceptual 3x3 matrix which combines ESG and OR where ESG factors are listed along the vertical axis, whilst OR components (i.e. Leadership and Strategy, Culture and Behaviours, Preparedness and Managing Risk) are listed along the horizontal axis. This results in nine quadrants, each of which has a specific name to represent – in a concise way – the specific combination between an ESG factor and an OR component.

The ESGOR matrix can be read according to two arrangements: (1) Static, looking at the specific characteristics of each single quadrant (), and (2) Dynamic, investigating the relationships between the different quadrants according to the system theory lens ().

3.1 Matrix static view

The static view allows the organisation to understand where it currently stands and/or where it would like to be placed. The identification of the positioning (current and/or potential) has repercussions at a decision-making level, both internal (within the actions undertaken or to be undertaken) and external (concerning the organisation’s current/potential investors and stakeholders’ needs/expectations). In other words, the static matrix can guide organisations’ decision-making processes by allowing them to identify their current/potential position, the related initiatives needed, and valuable metrics ().

It is worth emphasising that – being the matrix of a conceptual nature – no organisation is (or would like to be) exclusively in only one of the quadrants. Therefore, the static vision offers a simplified examination of the organisational realities’ complexities. Despite the simplification, this analysis is still critical because it allows the organisational strategy’s foundations (current and/or potential) to emerge. In other words, if it is true that it is rare – if not impossible – for organisations to focus exclusively on a single ESG factor and/or on a single OR component as well as on all the ESG factors and OR components simultaneously, it is equally valid that each organisation tends to give greater emphasis to one of these factors/components, according to their specific characteristics and those of the environment. Therefore, each organisation can identify its positioning within the matrix (i.e. a specific quadrant) through the intersection of the ESG factor and the OR component of greatest interest.

Below, each single quadrant is described.

3.1.1 Green visioning

Organisations in this quadrant concentrate most on environmental goals and organisational vision and leadership strategy. This entails pursuing a sustainable trajectory by meticulously integrating ecological concerns into strategic forecasting and planning (; ); for example, developing a vision devoted to pioneering global sustainability practices. In this vein, the leadership’s role is crucial in delineating and accomplishing an environmental course for the organisation (), also through the establishment of clear and longitudinal environmental objectives (e.g. carbon neutrality and renewable energy sources).

3.1.2 Eco ethos

In this quadrant, organisations foster a culture deeply rooted in sustainable and environmentally friendly practices, characterised by shared values, beliefs, and behaviours prioritising the planet’s well-being (). In this vein, in this quadrant, employees’ environmental commitment is crucial, and organisations must motivate them accordingly (e.g. by incentivising them to engage in carpooling) (). Similarly, there could be ad hoc organisational directives advocating office waste reduction, such as reduced paper usage by nudging employees to rely more on digital platforms and tools (). Such measures are not only eco-friendly but also foster a sense of collective responsibility towards the environment amongst employees (; ).

3.1.3 Climate guard

Organisations in this quadrant concentrate on preparedness strategies for the assessment, management, and mitigation of environmental and climate-related risks. Emphasising this focus is essential for protecting organisations from a myriad of environmental risks whilst simultaneously ensuring that there are robust structures in place to adapt to and counteract the diverse challenges posed by changing climatic conditions. In this vein, it is crucial for organisations to conduct comprehensive environmental risk assessments to determine their susceptibility to environmental threats and the potential impacts on their operations (). For instance, a company near a coastline might evaluate its vulnerability to rising sea levels or storm surges. Additionally, creating ad hoc disaster response plans in anticipation of natural calamities is equally significant (). Furthermore, a forward-thinking approach should be evident in prioritising investments in infrastructure that boasts resilience against the multifaceted impacts of climate change ().

3.1.4 Inclusive strategy

This quadrant centres on leadership’s commitment to some specific stakeholders’ social concerns, such as diversity, inclusion, and community welfare, which are central to the organisation’s strategy (). For instance, organisations in this quadrant actively embark on formulating specific goals that aim to enhance diversity and inclusion within leadership roles (). Organisations of this kind often advocate for social causes that align closely with their business (e.g. a pharmaceutical company that champions initiatives around the cause of affordable healthcare or disease eradication). In addition, these organisations frequently partner with nature- and environmentally-oriented stakeholders like non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to embark on community development projects (; ).

3.1.5 Empathy ethos

Organisations in this quadrant cultivate a corporate culture and workplace environment grounded in empathy, inclusiveness, and social responsibility. In this vein, team-building activities specifically designed to enhance mutual understanding and unity amongst employees are of paramount importance, for example, through the creation of cross-functional teams in which members participate by collaborating on projects outside of their usual roles, allowing them to understand and appreciate the perspectives and skills of their colleagues from diverse departments (). Furthermore, nurturing an atmosphere that fosters open dialogues about pressing societal issues is another pivotal activity (). Moreover, a tangible step towards solidifying the ethos of social responsibility is encouraging and facilitating employees to dedicate their time and effort towards volunteering for societal causes (; ).

3.1.6 Community shield

This quadrant is related to those organisations focused on constructing robust structures and practices to safeguard themselves and the neighbouring stakeholders (i.e. communities). To ensure that the organisation’s relationship with its surrounding communities remains positive and constructive, there should be a continuous effort to revisit and refine community engagement strategies to ensure they remain relevant and effective in addressing the evolving community’s needs and concerns (). A concrete manifestation of this commitment is establishing a dedicated community liaison team, which serves as an interface between the organisation and the community, ensuring open communication channels and fostering mutual understanding (; ).

3.1.7 Ethical blueprint

In this quadrant, organisations are characterised by leadership’s commitment to establishing a governance structure that adheres to the highest standards of ethics and responsibility. This commitment is underpinned by foundational principles encompassing integrity, transparency, and an unwavering sense of responsibility, manifesting in several salient organisation activities (; ). This implies that (1) organisations' senior-most echelons engage towards eradicating bribery and corruption practices, through ad hoc policies, training, and surveillance mechanisms (; ), and (2) the governance structure places a significant emphasis on fostering open channels for whistle-blowers, facilitating the detection and report of unethical or illegal activities without revenge fear ().

3.1.8 Integrity ethos

For the organisation in this quadrant, culture plays a pivotal role in shaping the behaviour and attitude of its members towards transparency, honesty, and strict adherence to governance norms. This emphasis should not be merely speculative; it must find manifestation in practical activities, like the organisation’s consistent efforts in conducting regular ethics and governance training sessions to educate the employees about the significance and nuances of ethical behaviour and the importance of adhering to governance standards (). In fostering and promoting a culture that values transparent and honest behaviours, organisations have actively moved away from a blame-centric culture, nurturing a culture that perceives mistakes as chances for collective learning rather than punishing ().

3.1.9 Compliance guard

Organisations in this quadrant ensure not only adherence to present governance and regulatory requirements but also fortify the organisation against potential governance-related risks. In fact, given the potential implications of governance risks, both in terms of reputational damage and financial repercussions, organisations are persistent in developing crisis management plans tailored specifically for such scenarios (). Central to this is the organisation’s proactive approach to maintaining the relevance and comprehensiveness of its compliance mechanisms () to ensure they reflect the most recent regulatory changes and governance mandates. In this quadrant, a crucial role is also played by the organisation’s forward-looking investment in technological solutions. By allocating resources to tools that automate and continuously monitor compliance processes (e.g. software that automatically scans financial transactions for any anomalies or deviations from established governance norms), the organisation reduces the possibility of human error and ensures real-time compliance adherence (; ).

3.2 Matrix dynamic view

The ESGOR matrix can be re-read according to the ST lens, emphasising the interconnectedness and interdependence of its components (i.e. quadrants). This allows us to see the matrix not merely as a collection of individual intersections between ESG factors and OR components (static view), but as a network of interconnected elements, where changes in one quadrant can resonate throughout the entire organisational system (cascade effects), influencing both internal and external dynamics.

Thus, the dynamic view better represents the complexity of the reality in which organisations operate. In other words, it provides a more comprehensive overview to decision-makers, allowing them to know the impacts of their decisions at an overall and not just local level of the organisation.

In other words, according to ST, each quadrant is not standalone, i.e. although unique in its definition, it does not operate in isolation. All quadrants are interconnected and influence each other, either directly or indirectly, creating ripple effects throughout the entire system (i.e. organisation): decisions, actions, or changes in one quadrant can create cascading effects throughout the system. Recognising these interconnected relationships can help organisations anticipate ripple effects and manage them proactively, ameliorating the overall decision-making process.

Below, these influences are graphically represented in , reporting both direct (i.e. immediate impacts that are almost certain when a change in one quadrant occurs) and indirect (i.e. effects that might occur depending on various circumstances or nuances within the organisation) impacts between the different quadrants .

According to ST, ESG factors and OR components are interconnected and interdependent aspects of an organisation’s overall system. ESG factors, such as environmental impacts or social responsibility, can directly influence the resilience of an organisation by shaping, for example, its ability to respond and adapt to disruptions or changes in the external environment. In other words, the decisions that an organisation makes in relation to the “environmental” factor will have repercussions both on the other ESG factors and on all the OR components. This allows us to consider the dynamic between the different quadrants of the matrix. In fact, ST allows the establishment of a direct influence between all the quadrants belonging to the same ESG factors or OR components, and indirect influence between quadrants which belong to different ESG factors or OR components. This is in line with the existence of feedback loops, where – according to ST – the outcomes of one system component (a quadrant in our case) influence other components (i.e. other quadrants), and vice versa. For example, mutual direct influences exist between “green visioning”, “eco ethos”, and “climate guard”. In fact, a company’s leadership adopting a strategy focussing on environmental practices can influence the company culture to become more environmentally conscious; on the other hand, an organisation characterised by a cultural emphasis on recycling and waste minimisation can inspire its leaders to create more environmentally oriented strategies (; ). Moreover, a company’s leadership influences the implementation of risk management and the success or failure of risk management projects; on the other hand, a company that introduces risk preparedness measures can inspire leadership to adopt specific environmental strategies (; ). Instead, indirect influences exist, for example, between “eco ethos” and “community shield”, because a company with an environmentally conscious culture might also be aware of the broader community’s well-being, but the opposite may be true as well, i.e. community-focused risk management can foster an eco-conscious culture ().

To summarise, by adopting a systems perspective, organisations can gain a holistic understanding of the relationships between ESG factors and OR components. This perspective emphasises the complex interactions, interdependencies, and feedback loops that shape the organisation’s ability to adapt and thrive in a changing environment. At the same time, it should be noted that the complexity of these relationships varies based on the specifics of an organisation, its external environment, and the time and context in which changes occur. It was obviously not possible to consider all these aspects in the analysis or to report them graphically. However, in accordance with the main purpose of this manuscript, the dynamic vision of the matrix also aims to offer a general tool for analysis and understanding of the phenomena under investigation. Thus, every organisation can start from this broad version and apply it to its specific context and characteristics.

4. Implications

4.1 Theoretical implications

Several contributions to theory emerge from this study. Firstly, the findings provide a comprehensive view of the relationships between ESG and OR through a conceptual matrix and by adopting the ST lens. In particular, the interaction between ESG factors and OR components results in nine organisational typologies, each characterised by a specific focus: (1) green visioning, (2) eco ethos, (3) climate guard, (4) inclusive strategy, (5) empathy ethos, (6) community shield, (7) ethical blueprint, (8) integrity ethos, and (9) compliance guard. These typologies and related focuses determine the different strategic options of organisations, the decision-making emphasis with respect to ESG factors and OR components, and the organisation’s behaviour with respect to its internal and external environment. By doing so, this study stresses the cruciality of accompanying the analysis of ESG with OR, as recently suggested by and , broadening the investigative horizon beyond mere stock returns and COVID-19 (; ), to provide a more comprehensive picture of the organisations of our time increasingly challenged by catastrophic events. In other words, integrating ESG and OR expands the concept of sustainability, suggesting that organisations must operate in an ethical, socially responsible, and environmentally friendly manner to withstand shocks and disruptions, but the opposite is also true: i.e. OR enables the firm to thrive in increasingly turbulent environments, paving the way for sustainability-oriented practices ().

Furthermore, integrating ESG and OR emphasises the importance of stakeholders, suggesting that OR should also be evaluated in terms of how well the organisation serves its various stakeholders, including communities, employees, and the environment (; ). The matrix underscores the importance of stakeholder engagement and influence. It encourages investors and organisations to actively engage with stakeholders to foster the integration of ESG factors and enhance resilience. The matrix supports the notion that stakeholder collaboration and dialogue are essential for achieving sustainable and resilient outcomes. Organisations that prioritise ESG factors and demonstrate responsible practices tend to earn trust and support from stakeholders, including customers, employees, investors, and communities. Strong stakeholder relationships and support can enhance an organisation’s resilience by providing a foundation of goodwill, loyalty, and cooperation during times of crisis or change. This can also enhance our understanding of how organisations respond to institutional pressures. Beyond regulatory compliance, in fact, organisations may proactively adopt ESG practices to enhance resilience, anticipating future regulations and societal expectations.

Moreover, the matrix has been re-read according to ST, uncovering the dynamics and systemic interactions between the identified typologies, suggesting the importance of moving from a static to a dynamic view to help organisations achieve both sustainability and resilience goals, in the face of the ever-changing contexts. Thus, our results are in line with and reinforce previous studies (e.g. ; ; ) calling for the adoption of a dynamic and long-term approach to ESG and OR.

Furthermore, the matrix offers implications for strategic decision-making within organisations. It helps organisations evaluate their current position, identify areas for improvement, and develop strategies that integrate ESG factors and OR components (; ; ; ; ). The matrix guides organisations in making strategic choices that align with sustainability goals, stakeholder expectations, and long-term value creation, encouraging a more holistic understanding of sustainable practices within organisations (; ; ; ). In particular, the adoption of ST allows us to highlight how ESG factors and OR components are interrelated and influence one another. This, in turn, determines that changes in one component can have cascading effects throughout the entire organisational system. Understanding these effects is crucial for developing strategies that can mitigate negative impacts and enhance positive ones.

Lastly, the results of this paper confirm the still scarce focus of the investigation on the “G” level (), which practically undermines the possibility of adopting a holistic understanding of ESG firstly, and of their integration with OR secondly.

4.2 Managerial implications

Although the ESGOR matrix can facilitate managers’ comprehension of several vital aspects, such as the dynamic relationships and reciprocal influences between ESG and OR, it inherits the advantages and disadvantages of a conceptual model derived from existing literature (); thus, its application in real contexts may pose some challenges to practitioners. Therefore, the ESGOR matrix needs to be adjusted to the organisation’s specific circumstances and characteristics, both internal (e.g. dimension) and external (e.g. industry trends). Hence, managers are called to tailor the matrix to the uniqueness of their organisation and, then, to develop ad hoc decision-making processes (strategies and action plans) according to their position within the matrix and their goals. In other words, adapting the proposed matrix to the specific context is imperative to ensure its efficacy. To identify their current (main) quadrant within the ESGOR matrix as well as to verify if they need to opt for a different quadrant, organisations may follow the ST’s cyclic procedure of input-throughput-output-feedback (), as described below:

  1. Input. They can be considered the stimuli that trigger the organisation’s operation and could arrive from the environment in various forms (e.g. raw materials, signals, resources, etc.). Adapting this phase to the ESGOR matrix means the organisation must collect information on ESG (e.g. carbon emissions, waste management, labour practices, community engagement, board structure, etc.) and OR (e.g. risk management strategies, contingency plans, operational flexibility, etc.).

  2. Throughput (i.e. processing). Once inputs are received, the organisation processes them internally to produce the desired outputs. Adapting this phase to the ESGOR matrix means the organisation needs to analyse and synthesise information to identify key trends, risks, and opportunities relevant to its operations and stakeholders.

  3. Output. It represents the result or outcome the organisation produces after processing the inputs. These could be products, services, information, etc. and are released back into the environment. Adapting this phase to the ESGOR matrix means that the organisation can identify the main quadrant in which it is positioned or would like to be positioned. In other words, in this phase, the organisation develops a strategic positioning plan that aligns the organisation’s activities with its ESG objectives and resilience capabilities, defining the organisation’s unique value proposition as well as providing actionable insights and recommendations for decision-makers to optimise resource allocation, prioritise initiatives, and enhance stakeholder value.

  4. Feedback: The information about the organisation’s output is returned to the organisation. Through this mechanism, the organisation can monitor its performance and make necessary corrections (adaptations). Feedback can be positive (reinforcing) or negative (corrective) and is crucial for organisations to maintain stability, increase performance, and achieve goals. Adapting this phase to the ESGOR matrix means that the organisation tracks and monitors its performance against its ESG and resilience objectives over time by gathering feedback from internal and external stakeholders, benchmarking against industry standards, and assessing the effectiveness of implemented strategies. By using feedback mechanisms, organisations can understand whether to stay in the quadrant they are currently in or whether it is necessary/preferable to move to a new quadrant.

The cyclic nature of this procedure implies that organisations continuously receive inputs, process them, produce outputs, and receive feedback, creating a dynamic loop of interactions that allows them to adapt, evolve, and maintain equilibrium in response to changes in their environment or internal conditions. In other words, this cyclic procedure enables the organisation to systematically integrate the considerations of ESG factors and OR components into its strategic decision-making process. Moreover, by continually assessing and adapting its positioning in the ESGOR matrix, the organisation can enhance its long-term sustainability, mitigate risks, and seize opportunities according to its specific realities and industry dynamics. This approach not only bolsters the effectiveness of the ESGOR matrix but also establishes a robust framework for the organisation’s sustainable success.

5. Conclusions

This paper represents a unique attempt to integrate ESG factors and OR components according to an ST lens, emphasising the dynamic nature of their interactions and organisations’ need for continuous adaptation and learning to make decisions that create sustainable long-term value. Thus, the paper combines ESG and OR through a 3x3 conceptual matrix, which leads to nine organisational typologies, each characterised by a specific focus, namely (1) green visioning, (2) eco ethos, (3) climate guard, (4) inclusive strategy, (5) empathy ethos, (6) community shield, (7) ethical blueprint, (8) integrity ethos, and (9) compliance guard.

The conceptual integration of ESG and OR through the ST lens enriches our understanding of the complex, interconnected nature of companies in the current competitive landscape and ever-changing world, providing evidence of the crucial importance of developing organisations that are simultaneously sustainable, responsible, and resilient. In other words, decision-makers are called to handle the multiplicity of challenges and opportunities presented by ESG and OR dynamics, recognising their intertwined nature and the need for a holistic approach to organisational management.

At the same time, the provided conceptual matrix has several limitations, which open the way to new and exciting research possibilities. The first limit refers to the level of in-depth analysis and exploration of all the relationships indicated within the dynamic matrix. In this vein, future research could observe the chain of relationships in the ESGOR matrix to establish the degree and weight of those relations. Furthermore, the proposed matrix does not analyse a specific organisational and/or environmental context. Therefore, future studies are called upon to test the influence of contexts. In this vein, it is crucial to note how each quadrant demands specific choices and resources, but – according to particular contexts – one quadrant might be more (or less) important than another. Furthermore, integrating ESG and OR research necessitates the development of comprehensive measurement frameworks. Thus, theoretical advancements could be made in developing unified metrics that assess a company’s ESG performance and resilience in the face of various turbulences. In other words, there is a need to develop new metrics and models capable of measuring these two elements holistically and dynamically. Moreover, ST emphasises the existence of feedback loops, which calls for a deeper theoretical and empirical (qualitative and quantitative) exploration of how positive (or negative) feedback loops relate to each other. For example, researchers could consider multiple quadrants of the matrix in relation to each other and investigate them through interviews with decision-makers to understand if and how feedback loop mechanisms occurred within specific contexts.

Figures

The ESGOR matrix: static view

Figure 1

The ESGOR matrix: static view

The ESGOR matrix: dynamic view

Figure 2

The ESGOR matrix: dynamic view

Note

1.

More information on direct and indirect influences can be found in the “” file.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.

References

Abdul Aziz, N.A. and Abdul Manab, N. (2020), “Does risk culture matter for sustaining the business? Evidence from Malaysian environmentally sensitive listed companies”, International Journal of Management and Sustainability, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 91-100, doi: 10.18488/journal.11.2020.92.91.100.

Abiddin, N.Z., Ibrahim, I. and Abdul Aziz, S.A. (2022), “Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and their part towards sustainable community development”, Sustainability, Vol. 14 No. 8, p. 4386, doi: 10.3390/su14084386.

Abramowicz, D.A. and Karim, S. (2021), “Risk and resilience in supply chains”, Research-Technology Management, Vol. 64 No. 6, pp. 33-40, doi: 10.1080/08956308.2021.1974778.

Adams, R.B. (2002), “Corporate governance and institutional investors: evidence from institutional shareholder voting on corporate governance principles”, Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 377-401.

Aghazadeh Ardebili, A., Padoano, E. and Rahmani, N. (2020), “Waste reduction for green service supply chain—the case study of a payment service provider in Iran”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 5, p. 1833, doi: 10.3390/su12051833.

Al-Omoush, K., Ribeiro-Navarrete, B. and McDowell, W.C. (2023), “The impact of digital corporate social responsibility on social entrepreneurship and organizational resilience”, Management Decision, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/MD-11-2022-1613.

Aragón-Correa, J.A. and Sharma, S. (2003), “A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate environmental strategy”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 71-88, doi: 10.2307/30040690.

Arjoon, S. (2005), “Corporate governance: an ethical perspective”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 343-352, doi: 10.1007/s10551-005-7888-5.

Baiocco, S., Leoni, L. and Paniccia, P.M.A. (2023), “Entrepreneurship for sustainable development: co-evolutionary evidence from the tourism sector”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 30 No. 7, pp. 1521-1546, doi: 10.1108/JSBED-01-2023-0003.

Barnett, M.L. (2007), “Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 794-816, doi: 10.5465/amr.2007.25275520.

Basnet, A., Blomkvist, M. and Galariotis, E. (2022), “The role of ESG in the decision to stay or leave the market of an invading country: the case of Russia”, Economics Letters, Vol. 216, 110636, doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2022.110636.

Becchetti, L., Bobbio, E., Prizia, F. and Semplici, L. (2022), “Going deeper into the S of ESG: a relational approach to the definition of social responsibility”, Sustainability, Vol. 14 No. 15, p. 9668, doi: 10.3390/su14159668.

Bennis, W., Goleman, D. and O’Toole, J. (2008), Transparency: How Leaders Create a Culture of Candor, John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, CA.

Berg, F., Koelbel, J.F. and Rigobon, R. (2022), “Aggregate confusion: the divergence of ESG ratings”, Review of Finance, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 1315-1344, doi: 10.1093/rof/rfac033.

Bertalanffy, L.V. (1968), General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications, G. Braziller, New York, NY.

Bhattacharya, C.B., Korschun, D. and Sen, S. (2012), “Strengthening stakeholder–company relationships through mutually beneficial corporate social responsibility initiatives”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 109 No. 2, pp. 259-274.

Billio, M., Costola, M., Hristova, I., Latino, C. and Pelizzon, L. (2021), “Inside the ESG Ratings: (Dis) agreement and performance”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 1426-1445, doi: 10.1002/csr.2177.

Cardillo, G., Bendinelli, E. and Torluccio, G. (2023), “COVID‐19, ESG investing, and the resilience of more sustainable stocks: evidence from European firms”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 602-623, doi: 10.1002/bse.3163.

Carroll, A.B. (1991), “The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders”, Business Horizons, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 39-48, doi: 10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-g.

Cascio, W.F. and Boudreau, J.W. (2010), Investing in People: Financial Impact of Human Resource Initiatives, Pearson Education, New Jersey.

Chouaibi, S. and Affes, H. (2021), “The effect of social and ethical practices on environmental disclosure: evidence from an international ESG data”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 1293-1317, doi: 10.1108/cg-03-2020-0087.

Ciasullo, M.V., Chiarini, A. and Palumbo, R. (2023), “Mastering the interplay of organizational resilience and sustainability: insights from a hybrid literature review”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 1418-1446, doi: 10.1002/bse.3530.

Conz, E. and Magnani, G. (2020), “A dynamic perspective on the resilience of firms: a systematic literature review and a framework for future research”, European Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 400-412, doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2019.12.004.

Cornell, B. and Shapiro, A.C. (2021), “Corporate stakeholders, corporate valuation and ESG”, European Financial Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 196-207, doi: 10.1111/eufm.12299.

Cote, J. and Latham, C. (2019), “Ethics training approaches in accountants' continuing professional education”, Journal of Accounting, Ethics and Public Policy, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 533-576.

Cucari, N., Esposito De Falco, S. and Orlando, B. (2018), “Diversity of board of directors and environmental social governance: evidence from Italian listed companies”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 250-266, doi: 10.1002/csr.1452.

Dalal, K.K. and Thaker, N. (2019), “ESG and corporate financial performance: a panel study of Indian companies”, IUP Journal of Corporate Governance, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 44-59.

Davy, A. (2017), “Managing community expectations through partnerships”, in Putting Partnerships to Work, Routledge, pp. 238-246.

Deloitte (2022), “Toward True Organizational Resilience”, available at: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/01_Global_Resilience_report_October_2022_wc.pdf

Duchek, S. (2020), “Organizational resilience: a capability-based conceptualization”, Business Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 215-246, doi: 10.1007/s40685-019-0085-7.

Eccles, N.S. and Viviers, S. (2011), “The origins and meanings of names describing investment practices that integrate a consideration of ESG issues in the academic literature”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 104 No. 3, pp. 389-402, doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0917-7.

Eccles, R.G., Ioannou, I. and Serafeim, G. (2012), “The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance”, Management Science, Vol. 60 No. 11, pp. 2835-2857, doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2014.1984.

Elkington, J. (1998), “Accounting for the triple bottom line”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 18-22, doi: 10.1108/eb025539.

Ellili, N.O.D. (2022), “Impact of ESG disclosure and financial reporting quality on investment efficiency”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 1094-1111, doi: 10.1108/cg-06-2021-0209.

Engle, R., Brogi, M., Cucari, N. and Lagasio, V. (2019), “Environmental, social, governance: implications for businesses and effects for stakeholders”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 1627-1628, doi: 10.1002/csr.1871.

Ete, Z., Epitropaki, O., Zhou, Q. and Graham, L. (2022), “Leader and organizational behavioral integrity and follower behavioral outcomes: the role of identification processes”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 176 No. 4, pp. 741-760, doi: 10.1007/s10551-020-04728-6.

Financial News (2022), “Ukraine war ‘bankrupts’ ESG case, says BlackRock's former sustainable investing boss”, available at: https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/ex-blackrock-boss-says-ukraine-bankrupts-esg-case-20220314 (accessed 23 November 2023).

Flammer, C. (2015), “Corporate social responsibility and shareholder reaction: the environmental awareness of investors”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 758-781, doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0744.

Florez-Jimenez, M.P., Lleo, A., Danvila-del-Valle, I. and Sánchez-Marín, G. (2024), “Corporate sustainability, organizational resilience and corporate purpose: a triple concept for achieving long-term prosperity”, Management Decision, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/MD-06-2023-0938.

Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Cambridge University Press.

Fuller, R.C. and Kruchten, P. (2021), “Blurring boundaries: toward the collective empathic understanding of product requirements”, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 140, 106670, doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2021.106670.

George, G., Merrill, R.K. and Schillebeeckx, S.J. (2021), “Digital sustainability and entrepreneurship: how digital innovations are helping tackle climate change and sustainable development”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 999-1027.

Giakoumelou, A., Salvi, A., Bertinetti, G.S. and Micheli, A.P. (2022), “2008's mistrust vs 2020's panic: can ESG hold your institutional investors?”, Management Decision, Vol. 60 No. 10, pp. 2770-2785, doi: 10.1108/md-12-2021-1669.

Gill, M.J. (2023), “Understanding the spread of sustained employee volunteering: how volunteers influence their coworkers' moral identity work”, Journal of Management, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 677-708, doi: 10.1177/01492063211050879.

Gittell, J.H., Cameron, K., Lim, S. and Rivas, V. (2006), “Relationships, layoffs, and organizational resilience: airline industry responses to September 11”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 300-329, doi: 10.1177/0021886306286466.

Gumbs, K. and Qian, X. (2012), “Board oversight of risk management and crisis preparedness”, Insights: The Corporate and Securities Law Advisor, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 21-30.

Hart, S.L. (1995), “A natural-resource-based view of the firm”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 986-1014, doi: 10.2307/258963.

Heath, A. and Cotton, M. (2022), “Responsibility, engagement, and policy strategy for ocean plastic waste management: a Q-method study of stakeholder perspectives”, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 65 No. 13, pp. 2412-2435, doi: 10.1080/09640568.2021.1971954.

Hernandez-Chea, R., Mahdad, M. and Thai, M. (2021), “10. Social challenges within sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems”, in Handbook of Sustainability-Driven Business Strategies in Practice, p. 158.

Hernandez-Matias, J.C., Ocampo, J.R., Hidalgo, A. and Vizan, A. (2020), “Lean manufacturing and operational performance: interrelationships between human-related lean practices”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 217-235, doi: 10.1108/jmtm-04-2019-0140.

Hillmann, J. (2021), “Disciplines of organizational resilience: contributions, critiques, and future research avenues”, Review of Managerial Science, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 879-936, doi: 10.1007/s11846-020-00384-2.

Hillmann, J. and Guenther, E. (2021), “Organizational resilience: a valuable construct for management research?”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 7-44, doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12239.

Holtzen, S. (2022), “Exploring secrecy in pay communication: a conceptual matrix”, Employee Relations: The International Journal, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 1448-1466, doi: 10.1108/er-04-2021-0164.

Howard, M.C. and Serviss, E. (2022), “The antecedents and outcomes of corporate volunteering: an employee-and organizational-level meta-analysis”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 93-110, doi: 10.1108/jmp-01-2021-0018.

Hristov, I., Cristofaro, M., Camilli, R. and Leoni, L. (2024 In press), “A system dynamics approach to the balanced scorecard: a review and dynamic strategy map for operations management”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/JMTM-02-2022-0069.

Hu, Y., Zhang, H. and Yang, P. (2020), “Resilience under weiji: evidence from Chinese listed companies”, Management and Organization Review, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 761-768, doi: 10.1017/mor.2020.49.

Hughes, E. and Scheyvens, R. (2021), “Tourism partnerships: harnessing tourist compassion to ‘do good’ through community development in Fiji”, World Development, Vol. 145, 105529, doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105529.

Hulland, J. (2020), “Conceptual review papers: revisiting existing research to develop and refine theory”, AMS Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 27-35.

Ilyas, M., Mian, R.U. and Suleman, M.T. (2022), “Economic policy uncertainty and firm propensity to invest in corporate social responsibility”, Management Decision, Vol. 60 No. 12, pp. 3232-3254, doi: 10.1108/md-06-2021-0746.

Isensee, C., Teuteberg, F. and Griese, K.M. (2023), “Success factors of organizational resilience: a qualitative investigation of four types of sustainable digital entrepreneurs”, Management Decision, Vol. 61 No. 5, pp. 1244-1273, doi: 10.1108/md-03-2022-0326.

Jensen, M.C. and Meckling, W.H. (1976), “Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 305-360, doi: 10.1016/0304-405x(76)90026-x.

Kalia, C. (2021), “Why integrating ESG into your business could be the key to its resilience”, available at: https://www.ey.com/en_in/climate-change-sustainability-services/why-integrating-esg-into-your-business-could-be-the-key-to-its-resilience (accessed 21 November 2023).

Kaptein, M. (2022), “How much you see is how you respond: the curvilinear relationship between the frequency of observed unethical behavior and the whistleblowing intention”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 175 No. 4, pp. 857-875, doi: 10.1007/s10551-020-04663-6.

Khan, M.R., Serafeim, G. and Yoon, A. (2016), “Corporate sustainability: first evidence on materiality”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 91 No. 6, pp. 1697-1724, doi: 10.2308/accr-51383.

Kim, S. (2022), “Are your employees hopeful at work? The influence of female leadership, gender diversity and inclusion climate on Japanese employees' hope”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 13, 936811, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.936811.

Kim, S.O. (2023), “Review of food upcycling in South Korea: regulation, limitation, and prospects”, Food Science and Biotechnology, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 1-10, doi: 10.1007/s10068-022-01184-y.

Koller, T., Nuttall, R. and Henisz, W. (2019), “Five ways that ESG creates value”, The McKinsey Quarterly, pp. 1-12.

Kuknor, S.C. and Bhattacharya, S. (2022), “Inclusive leadership: new age leadership to foster organizational inclusion”, European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 46 No. 9, pp. 771-797, doi: 10.1108/ejtd-07-2019-0132.

Larcker, D.F., Tayan, B. and Watts, E.M. (2022), “Seven myths of ESG”, European Financial Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 869-882, doi: 10.1111/eufm.12378.

Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J.W. (1967), “Differentiation and integration in complex organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, pp. 1-47.

Lengnick-Hall, C.A., Beck, T.E. and Lengnick-Hall, M.L. (2011), “Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 243-255, doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.07.001.

Leoni, L., Ardolino, M., El Baz, J., Gueli, G. and Bacchetti, A. (2022), “The mediating role of knowledge management processes in the effective use of artificial intelligence in manufacturing firms”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 42 No. 13, pp. 411-437, doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-05-2022-0282.

Limnios, E.A.M., Mazzarol, T., Ghadouani, A. and Schilizzi, S.G. (2014), “The resilience architecture framework: four organizational archetypes”, European Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 104-116, doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2012.11.007.

Madi Odeh, R.B., Obeidat, B.Y., Jaradat, M.O., Masa'deh, R.E. and Alshurideh, M.T. (2023), “The transformational leadership role in achieving organizational resilience through adaptive cultures: the case of Dubai service sector”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 440-468, doi: 10.1108/ijppm-02-2021-0093.

Mashi, S., Idris, K. and Kazaure, I.A.Y. (2023), “Toward development of comprehensive national disaster response plans: an evaluation of Nigeria's national disaster response plan, 2002”, Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 268-284, doi: 10.1108/dpm-08-2022-0167.

Mele, C., Pels, J. and Polese, F. (2010), “A brief review of systems theories and their managerial applications”, Service Science, Vol. 2 No. 1-2, pp. 126-135.

Menicucci, E. and Paolucci, G. (2023), “The influence of Italian board characteristics on environmental, social and governance dimensions”, Management Decision, Vol. 61 No. 10, pp. 3082-3105, doi: 10.1108/md-09-2022-1224.

Merchant, R. (2023), “How tracking ESG metrics can help reduce costs and build supply-chain resilience”, available at: https://hbr.org/sponsored/2023/04/how-tracking-esg-metrics-can-help-reduce-costs-and-build-supply-chain-resilience (accessed 20 November 2023).

Mirhadian, N., Azizan, O. and Shahriari, M. (2023), “The impact of green culture on employee organizational commitment: the mediating role of green identity”, Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, pp. 1-20, doi: 10.1080/10911359.2023.2222292.

Monk, A. and Rook, D. (2022), Resilience as an Analytical Filter for ESG Data. Sustainability, Technology, and Finance: Rethinking How Markets Integrate ESG, Routledge, New York.

Murè, P., Spallone, M., Mango, F., Marzioni, S. and Bittucci, L. (2021), “ESG and reputation: the case of sanctioned Italian banks”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 265-277, doi: 10.1002/csr.2047.

Murphy, S.A. (2008), “The role of emotions and transformational leadership on police culture: an autoethnographic account”, International Journal of Police Science and Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 165-178.

Narula, S.A., Magry, M.A. and Mathur, A. (2019), “Business‐community engagement: a case of mining company in India”, Business Strategy and Development, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 315-331, doi: 10.1002/bsd2.64.

Neri, M., Niccolini, F. and Francesco, V. (2023), “Organizational resilience: state of the art and new future cyber inquiries”, IMPRESA PROGETTO, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-33.

Odulaja, B.A., Oke, T.T., Eleogu, T., Abdul, A.A. and Daraojimba, H.O. (2023), “Resilience in the face of uncertainty: a review on the impact of supply chain volatility amid ongoing geopolitical disruptions”, International Journal of Applied Research in Social Sciences, Vol. 5 No. 10, pp. 463-486, doi: 10.51594/ijarss.v5i10.634.

Ortiz‐de‐Mandojana, N. and Bansal, P. (2016), “The long‐term benefits of organizational resilience through sustainable business practices”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 8, pp. 1615-1631, doi: 10.1002/smj.2410.

Parker, J. and Davies, B. (2020), “No blame no gain? From a no blame culture to a responsibility culture in medicine”, Journal of Applied Philosophy, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 646-660, doi: 10.1111/japp.12433.

Pedersen, L.H., Fitzgibbons, S. and Pomorski, L. (2021), “Responsible investing: the ESG-efficient Frontier”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 142 No. 2, pp. 572-597, doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2020.11.001.

Pérez Benítez, M., Zambrano Celly, J.J., Vallejo, G., Paz, M. and Abrahams, N. (2020), “Aligning responsibilities between operator and contractor community liaison teams in a mature oilfield in the Latin American region”, SPE International Conference and Exhibition on Health, Safety, Environment, and Sustainability, OnePetro.

Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2011), “Creating shared value”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 89 Nos 1/2, pp. 62-77.

Prayag, G., Chowdhury, M., Orchiston, C. and Spector, S. (2018), “Organizational resilience and financial performance”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 73, pp. 193-196.

Pryce, J. (2021), “The interplay of organisational resilience and organisational culture: a discussion paper”, Journal of Resilient Economies, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 19-24, doi: 10.25120/jre.1.2.2021.3870.

Rai, S.S., Rai, S. and Singh, N.K. (2021), “Organizational resilience and social-economic sustainability: COVID-19 perspective”, Environment, Development and Sustainability, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 12006-12023, doi: 10.1007/s10668-020-01154-6.

Rivera, J.E., Oh, C.H., Oetzel, J. and Clement, V. (2022), Business Adaptation to Climate Change, Cambridge University Press.

Rodin, J. and Madsbjerg, S. (2021), “ESG Is missing a metric: R for resilience”, World Economic Forum, available at: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/esg-resilience-investment-environment-social-governance/

Rothenberg, S., Maxwell, J. and Marcus, D.A. (1992), “Issues in the implementation of proactive environmental strategies”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 1-12, doi: 10.1002/bse.3280010402.

Ruan, W., Xu, M., Jia, H., Wu, Z., Song, L. and Han, W. (2021), “Privacy compliance: can technology come to the rescue?”, IEEE Security and Privacy, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 37-43, doi: 10.1109/msec.2021.3078218.

Ruiz-Martin, C., López-Paredes, A. and Wainer, G. (2018), “What we know and do not know about organizational resilience”, International Journal of Production Management and Engineering, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 11-28, doi: 10.4995/ijpme.2018.7898.

Santoro, G., Bertoldi, B., Giachino, C. and Candelo, E. (2020), “Exploring the relationship between entrepreneurial resilience and success: the moderating role of stakeholders' engagement”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 119, pp. 142-150, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.052.

Sari, T.K., Cahaya, F.R. and Joseph, C. (2021), “Coercive pressures and anti-corruption reporting: the case of ASEAN countries”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 171 No. 3, pp. 495-511, doi: 10.1007/s10551-020-04452-1.

Sashi, C.M. (2021), “Digital communication, value co-creation and customer engagement in business networks: a conceptual matrix and propositions”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55 No. 6, pp. 1643-1663, doi: 10.1108/ejm-01-2020-0023.

Sciarelli, M., Cosimato, S., Landi, G. and Iandolo, F. (2021), “Socially responsible investment strategies for the transition towards sustainable development: the importance of integrating and communicating ESG”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 39-56, doi: 10.1108/tqm-08-2020-0180.

Seville, E., Brunsdon, D., Dantas, A., Le Masurier, J., Wilkinson, S. and Vargo, J. (2008), “Organisational resilience: researching the reality of New Zealand organisations”, Journal of Business Continuity and Emergency Planning, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 258-266.

Shaikh, I. (2022), “Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practice and firm performance: an international evidence”, Journal of Business Economics and Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 218-237, doi: 10.3846/jbem.2022.16202.

Sheehan, N.T., Vaidyanathan, G., Fox, K.A. and Klassen, M. (2023), “Making the invisible, visible: overcoming barriers to ESG performance with an ESG mindset”, Business Horizons, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 265-276, doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2022.07.003.

Sheehy, B., Pender, H. and Jacobsen, B. (2021), “Corporate social responsibility/ESG shareholder activism in Australia: a case study of the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility”, Australian Journal of Corporate Law, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 156-177.

Slaper, T.F. and Hall, T.J. (2011), “The triple bottom line: what is it and how does it work”, Indiana Business Review, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 4-8.

Souza, A.A.A., Alves, M.F.R., Macini, N., Cezarino, L.O. and Liboni, L.B. (2017), “Resilience for sustainability as an eco-capability”, International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 581-599, doi: 10.1108/ijccsm-09-2016-0144.

Strine, L.E., Brooke, J.L., Diamond, K.M. and Parker, D.L. Jr (2022), “It's time to focus on the “G” in ESG”, Harvard Business Review, available at: https://hbr.org/2022/11/its-time-to-focus-on-the-g-in-esg (accessed 23 November 2023).

Suciu, M.C., Noja, G.G. and Cristea, M. (2020), “Diversity, social inclusion and human capital development as fundamentals of financial performance and risk mitigation”, Amfiteatru Economic, Vol. 22 No. 55, pp. 742-757, doi: 10.24818/ea/2020/55/742.

Suluo, S.J. and Mayemba, B.K. (2023), “Determinants of bank employees' engagement in asset misappropriation in Tanzania”, Business Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 92-103, doi: 10.56279/bmrj.v26i1.6.

Summerill, C., Pollard, S.J. and Smith, J.A. (2010), “The role of organizational culture and leadership in water safety plan implementation for improved risk management”, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 408 No. 20, pp. 4319-4327.

Sutcliffe, K.M. and Vogus, T.J. (2003), “Organizing for resilience”, in Cameron, K., Dutton, J.E. and Quinn, R.E. (Eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA, pp. 94-110.

Syahwani, A.K.I. (2019), “The effect of entrepreneurial leadership, organizational culture and information system on the implementation of risk management”, Inovasi: Jurnal Ekonomi, Keuangan, dan Manajemen, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 232-248.

Tiwari, R., Sharma, N. and Sharma, N.K. (2023), “Categorizing and understanding the evolution of literature on ESG investments: a bibliometric analysis”, Vision, 09722629231197574, doi: 10.1177/09722629231197574.

Tortorella, G., Prashar, A., Antony, J., Vassolo, R., Mac Cawley, A., Peimbert Garcia, R. and Nascimento, D.L.d.M. (2023), “Soft lean practices and organizational resilience in the service sector”, Management Decision, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/MD-06-2023-1034.

Tsypkin, Y.A., Fomin, A.A., Kamaev, R.A., Kozlova, N.V. and Gubarev, E.V. (2020), “Strategic digital model for sustainable spatial regional development”, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Vol. 579 No. 1, 012138.

UNDRR (2021a), “A G20 Input paper: accelerating financing for disaster risk reduction to build lasting resilience”, available at: https://www.undrr.org/media/78030/download (accessed 20 November 2023).

United Nations (2004), “Who Cares win. Connecting financial Markets to a changing world”, available at: https://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/events/2004/stocks/who_cares_wins_global_compact_2004.pdf (accessed 20 November 2023).

Vargas-Hernández, J.G. and Calderón-Campos, P. (2022), “Organizational green culture implications in organizational resilience and green behaviors”, in Handbook of Research on SDGs for Economic Development, Social Development, and Environmental Protection, IGI Global, pp. 427-446.

Vogus, T.J. and Sutcliffe, K.M. (2007), “Organizational resilience: towards a theory and research agenda”, 2007 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, pp. 3418-3422.

Wang, Y., Wu, Q. and Razi, U. (2023), “Drivers and mitigants of resources consumption in China: discovering the role of digital finance and environmental regulations”, Resources Policy, Vol. 80, 103180, doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.103180.

Williams, C. and You, J.J. (2021), Organizing for Resilience: Leading and Managing Risk in a Disruptive World, Routledge.

Wright, C. and Nyberg, D. (2012), “Working with passion: emotionology, corporate environmentalism and climate change”, Human Relations, Vol. 65 No. 12, pp. 1561-1587.

Xie, J., Nozawa, W., Yagi, M., Fujii, H. and Managi, S. (2019), “Do environmental, social, and governance activities improve corporate financial performance?”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 286-300, doi: 10.1002/bse.2224.

Xu, N., Chen, J., Zhou, F., Dong, Q. and He, Z. (2023), “Corporate ESG and resilience of stock prices in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in China”, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Vol. 79, 102040, doi: 10.1016/j.pacfin.2023.102040.

Yang, Q., Du, Q., Razzaq, A. and Shang, Y. (2022), “How volatility in green financing, clean energy, and green economic practices derive sustainable performance through ESG indicators? A sectoral study of G7 countries”, Resources Policy, Vol. 75, 102526, doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102526.

Yelisieiev, V. and Bykova, E. (2022), “Mathematical model of environmental risks assessment taking into account the effect of accumulation of damage in modern conditions”, 16th International Conference Monitoring of Geological Processes and Ecological Condition of the Environment, European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Vol. 2022 No. 1, pp. 1-5.

Zabłocka-Kluczka, A. and Sałamacha, A. (2020), “Moderating role of corporate reputation in the influence of external support on organisational resilience and performance”, Engineering Management in Production and Services, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 87-102, doi: 10.2478/emj-2020-0021.

Zhang, R. and Noronha, C. (2023), “Biodiversity initiatives: theoretical and practical intersections among TNFD, biodiversity credits, and ESG reporting”, in Handbook of Research on Bioeconomy and Economic Ecosystems, IGI Global, pp. 39-54.

Zhang, W., Sun, B. and Xu, F. (2020), “Promoting green product development performance via leader green transformationality and employee green self-efficacy: the moderating role of environmental regulation”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 17 No. 18, p. 6678.

Zighan, S. (2023), “Mitigating the “Cobra Effect” when pursuing organizational resilience”, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 635-647, doi: 10.1111/1468-5973.12467.

Zumente, I. and Bistrova, J. (2021), “ESG importance for long-term shareholder value creation: literature vs practice”, Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, Vol. 7 No. 2, 127, doi: 10.3390/joitmc7020127.

Further reading

Al Amosh, H. and Khatib, S.F. (2023), “COVID‐19 impact, financial and ESG performance: evidence from G 20 countries”, Business Strategy and Development, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 310-321, doi: 10.1002/bsd2.240.

Elkington, J. (2018), “25 years ago I coined the phrase ‘triple bottom line.’ Here's why it's time to rethink it”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 25, pp. 2-5.

Filbeck, G., Robbins, E. and Zhao, X. (2022), “Social capital during the coronavirus pandemic: the value of corporate benevolence”, Applied Economics, Vol. 54 No. 13, pp. 1460-1472, doi: 10.1080/00036846.2021.1977773.

Global Reporting Initiative (2018), “GRI standards”, available at: https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/ (accessed 23 November 2023).

Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977), “Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 340-363, doi: 10.1086/226550.

Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (2020), “SASB standards”, available at: https://www.sasb.org/standards/ (accessed 23 November 2023).

UNDRR (2021b), “Opportunities for delivering risk-informed investment: addressing the barriers”, available at: https://globalplatform.undrr.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/Opportunities%20for%20delivering%20risk-informed%20investment%20Addressing%20the%20barriers%20%281%29%20%281%29.pdf (accessed 20 November 2023).

Zhang, W., Sun, B. and Xu, F. (2020), “Promoting green product development performance via leader green transformationality and employee green self-efficacy: the moderating role of environmental regulation”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 17 No. 18, p. 6678, doi: 10.3390/ijerph17186678.

Corresponding author

Luna Leoni can be contacted at: luna.leoni@uniroma2.it

About the author

Luna Leoni is Associate Professor in Management at the University of Rome, Tor Vergata. At the same university, she is a Professor of “Management of Creative Firms”, “Knowledge Management” and “Knowledge Management Foundations” as well as the Program Manager of the “Master in Economics and Management of Cultural and Tourist Activities”. Her main research interest areas are servitization, knowledge management, tourism and creativity. Moreover, she is a Council Member of the European Association for Research on Services (RESER). Luna’s research findings have appeared in top-tier business, management and tourism journals.

Related articles