Chief Sustainability Officer Research Articles

Probing the CSR-pro-environmental behavior linkage: Insights into green reputation and chief sustainability officer influence

This study aims to examine the impacts of internal and external corporate social responsibility (CSR) on managers’ pro-environmental behaviors with the mediating role of green reputation and moderating of chief sustainability officer (CSO). We acquired information from 609 managers working in various Chinese manufacturing firms using a standardized survey tool. Structural equation modelling (SEM) was performed to analyze data. Our major findings are as follows. First, both internal and external CSR influence the pro-environmental behaviors of managers through the mediation role of corporate green reputation. Second, the CSO significantly moderates the relationship between CSR actions and corporate green reputation. Our study contributes to the body of current knowledge by giving empirical evidence for the theoretical framework linking CSR, reputation, and pro-environmental behavior. The findings from this study offer managerial insights for businesses that deliberately want to promote environmentally friendly activities.

Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO) power and sustainability-based compensation for climate change disclosure and carbon performance: is it different for developed and developing nations?

Purpose Companies are increasingly appointing a Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO) to anchor the need to highlight climate change at the senior management level. This study aims to examine how CSO power and sustainability-based compensation influence climate reporting and carbon performance. Design/methodology/approach Using one of the largest data sets to date, consisting of 18,834 company years through the author’s observations, spanning an 11-year period (2011–2021) in 33 countries. This paper used quantitative methods – specifically, ordinal logistic regression estimation. This paper measures the level of climate change disclosure based on the carbon disclosure leadership methodology. Carbon performance is based on the intensity of carbon emissions (Scope 1, Scope 2), which is a quantitative and relatively more objective measure. Findings The results suggest that climate change disclosure continued to increase and the carbon emissions intensity of the companies in this study gradually decreased over the sample period. This paper finds that the presence of the CSO within the top management team has a positive and significant influence on the level of information on climate change of the companies in the sample. This finding confirms the idea that the managerial capacity of CSOs motivates the disclosure of climate change. The empirical results confirm that there are differences in the role that the CSO and sustainability-based compensation play in influencing the quality of climate information disclosure in developed and developing countries. Originality/value The recourse on a mixed theoretical framework, which highlights upper echelons theory, argues the understanding of the role of CSOs in explaining the relationship between climate change disclosure–carbon performance relationship. The novelty of the study lies in the approaches adopted to describe the quality of climate change disclosure. To control for endogeneity, this paper uses a difference-in-difference analysis by adding a firm to the Morgan Stanley Capital International index as an exogenous shock.

Chief Sustainability Officer’s Role Centrality and Corporate Sustainability Performance

Chief Sustainability Officer’s Role Centrality and Corporate Sustainability Performance

Are Chief Sustainability Officers Guardians of Environmental Justice? An Empirical Evaluation

Are Chief Sustainability Officers Guardians of Environmental Justice? An Empirical Evaluation

The Practices of Chief Sustainability Officers in Orchestrating Strategy Formation

The Practices of Chief Sustainability Officers in Orchestrating Strategy Formation

The Role and Responsibilities of the Chief Sustainability Officer in ESG

The Role and Responsibilities of the Chief Sustainability Officer in ESG

Signaling Corporate Responsibility: An Event Study of Chief Sustainability Officer Appointments

Signaling Corporate Responsibility: An Event Study of Chief Sustainability Officer Appointments

Corporate commitments to biodiversity disclosure and sustainable board. Do NGO directors on board matter? Recent evidence from S&P 500 companies

AbstractThis study analyzes the impact of the characteristics of sustainable boards and NGO directors on biodiversity disclosures. This research uses data from 481 US companies that are taken from Standard & Poor's 500 (S&P), ASSET4, for the period 2009–2020 (5616 company‐year observations). Data on NGO directors is provided by MSCI's GMI Rankings database. A panel data analysis with fixed effects models is used to estimate the results. The results also indicate that a sustainable board structure (proxied by Chief Sustainability Officers (CSOs) and Sustainability‐related executive compensation) is positively correlated with biodiversity disclosure. Our empirical results also show that the moderating role of NGO directors has a greater interaction effect with the characteristics of sustainable boards and biodiversity information disclosure initiatives. The results are also consistent for exploitative and nonexploitative industries, as well as for the pre‐ and post SDG (14–15) of the agenda 2030. In addition, the framework of SDG (14‐15) and the strategic plan of partnership with the Agenda of 2030 show a positive relationship with biodiversity disclosure. We then develop a causal relationship through the positive impact of NGO directors serving on the board of directors on a strategy of partnerships, onboarding, and increase/decrease of NGO directors—possible mechanisms by which NGO directors can influence biodiversity disclosure. Overall, our findings suggest that while NGO directors can potentially be appointed to a company's board of directors for legitimization reasons, these directors are associated with better biodiversity disclosure. The study has valuable implications for enduring board members, practitioners, and scholars. The results are supported by theories of legitimacy, stakeholders and resource dependence. However, evidence on this research question is still unknown and critical, especially in the context of stakeholder‐emphasized governance systems (continental Europe, Japan) and developing countries where there is a lack of knowledge application of regulations related to the disclosure of biodiversity.

Mapping the Evolution of Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO) and its Appointment Impact on Performance: A Bibliometric Analysis

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to synthesize literature and results about chief sustainability officer (CSO) appointment on performance of leading US companies that comprise the S & P 500 Index and to summarize the current trends, main topics, the most influential journals, and the authors.
 Design/Methodology/Approach: In our research, 233 studies from 144 scientific journals recruited for bibliometric analyses and covered three decades from 1998 to 2023. Our study has identified three influential streams: (1) The CSO as a top management team (TMT) member, the effect of appointment on its performance and; (2) Importance of sustainability and performance; and (3) Sustainable and performance. Thematic map classifies the CSO appointment and performance relationship themes into four categories: For instance, they can include niches themes (appointment of CSO and sustainability); motor themes (appointment of CSO and sustainable development); emerging/declining themes (appointment of CSO and corporate governance); and the foundation/transversal themes (appointment of CSO and sustainability reporting).
 Implications/Originality/Value: Through this study, scholars, public authorities, directors of companies, and advisers to businesses will have understanding about CSO appointment based on the performance in accordance with the accounting based, market based and economic based perspective. Finally, we point out the most important practical conclusions and provide research gaps in this area.

The Impact of Chief Sustainability Officers on Environmental Performance of Korean Listed Companies: The Mediating Role of Corporate Sustainability Practices

Chief sustainability officers and sustainability consultants have become increasingly common today as many organizations have become more aware of their impact on the environment and society at large. With the growing importance of integrating sustainability into business, many firms are appointing chief sustainability officers to manage and oversee the sustainability affairs of their firms at various levels. However, very little is known about the chief sustainability officer and the sustainability management team. This study investigates the potential importance of the chief sustainability officer (CSO) and the sustainability management team toward the firm’s environmental performance. Using a sample of Korean-listed companies for the year 2017–2020, this study aims to investigate the relationship between appointment of the chief sustainability officer and a firm’s environmental performance. It also explores the possible mediating role of corporate sustainability practices (CSP) in this relationship, utilizing Baron and Kenny’s method to analyze the mediating role. First, the regression analysis was conducted to assess the impact of the presence and role of CSO on the firm’s environmental performance. Subsequently, the firm’s CSP was then introduced into the regression analysis as a mediator, to evaluate its influence on the relationship between the chief sustainability officer and the firm’s environmental performance. We found that CSP completely mediated the relationship between CSO and environmental performance. This study contributes empirically to the growing literature on the relevance of sustainability management officials and their impacts on the firm’s environmental performance.

The Importance of a Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO) in Multinational and State-Owned Enterprises

This study examines the function of chief sustainability officers (CSOs) in state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and multinational enterprises (MNEs) doing business in Indonesia, with a focus on their initiatives to achieve net-zero carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 2050. This project highlights the value of having a Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO) in Indonesian MNEs and SOEs. These organizations must acknowledge that they currently lack a CSO at the director level and must assign a CSO to their organizational structure. Strategic leadership, regulatory compliance, stakeholder engagement, innovation and technology adoption, risk mitigation, cost savings, carbon accounting and reporting, and competitive advantage are critical strategic CSOs for Indonesian MNEs and SOEs beyond guaranteeing sustainability. Seventy-six sustainability reports from State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) and Multinational Enterprises (MNEs) operating in Indonesia listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for 2021–2022 are the documents studied in the approaches. The results indicate that a critical prerequisite for long-term development and a way to meet sustainability goals is for Indonesian MNEs and SOEs to designate a CSO. The CSO is essential in promoting sustainable practices, reducing risks, ensuring compliance, and enhancing the company's image in a society that is becoming more environmentally conscious. Establishing and strengthening the CSO role should be a top priority for these organizations if they want to reach their goal of being net-zero emitters of CO2by 2050. Doi: 10.28991/HEF-2023-04-03-04 Full Text: PDF

Catch Up with the Good and Stay Away from the Bad: CEO Decisions on the Appointment of Chief Sustainability Officers

AbstractWhy do some chief executive officers (CEOs) appoint chief sustainability officers (CSOs) for their firms while others do not? We answer this question by examining CEOs' attention allocation to competition for stakeholders' approval, which can be triggered by both industry peers' corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate social irresponsibility (CSiR). An increase in peers' CSR triggers CEOs' attention allocation by observing that peers have improved and thus pose a competitive threat to their own firms. An increase in peers' CSiR triggers CEOs' attention allocation by perceiving that stakeholders will demand more for sustainability and thus place higher sanctions on their own firms in the future. CEOs' attention allocated to industry peers' CSR and CSiR, in turn, can increase their perceived importance and urgency of appointing CSOs for their firms to ‘catch up with the good’ (responsible peers) and to ‘stay away from the bad’ (irresponsible peers). We also theorize the moderating roles of CEOs' motivational attributes, such that predominantly prevention‐focused CEOs are more (less) likely to appoint CSOs as peers increase CSR (CSiR), and future‐oriented CEOs are more (less) likely to appoint CSOs as peers increase CSiR (CSR).

Do top management team diversity and chief sustainability officer make firms greener? Moderating role of top management team behavioral integration

AbstractAchieving green innovation goals is a challenging task. Several scholars have tried to explore the important determinants of green innovation; however, this concept needs further exploration from the corporate governance perspective. Hence, this study aims at determining the role of a firm's top management team (TMT) composition regarding green innovation. Specifically, we explore the impact of TMT diversity and the presence of a chief sustainability officer (CSO) on green innovation with moderating role of TMT behavioral integration. Data was collected from the hotels' top management in Pakistan. The findings reveal that TMT diversity, CSO, and TMT behavioral integration positively impact green innovation. However, the impact of TMT diversity on green innovation will be stronger with TMT behavioral integration. This study adds value to the upper echelon theory and the literature on green innovation. That is followed by the managerial implications.

The Impact of Sustainability Corporate Governance on Corporate Environmental Disclosure

The goal of this research is to assess the influence of Chief Sustainability Officers (CSOs) and Environmental Committees (ECs) on Corporate Environmental Disclosure (CED) in firms in Mineral and Coal Industry sector. This study, using purposive sampling, involved 75 sample companies of the said companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange between 2015 and 2019. Based on the analysis, it was found that Chief Sustainability Officers (CSOs) and Environmental Committees (ECs) have no significant influence on Corporate Environmental Disclosure (CED). This research implies that companies can consider Corporate Environmental Disclosure necessary to show stakeholders their awareness of broader interests and accountability through behaving socially responsibly. This research’s samples were limited to corporations engaged in the Mineral and Coal Industry and registered in the Indonesia Stock Exchange. This empirical focused on the influence of Chief Sustainability Officers (CSOs) and Environmental Committees (ECs) on Corporate Environmental Disclosure (CED) in sustainability reports which are still rare among Indonesian business entities, especially those operating in Mineral and Coal Industry, using the control variables of Firm size, Leverage, and ROA.

Green Governance and Sustainability Report Quality: The Moderating Role of Sustainability Commitment in ASEAN Countries

This study aims to examine the role of green governance in the quality of sustainability reports. We also examine the moderating role of sustainability commitment between green governance and the quality of sustainability reports. This research is a quantitative study by using unbalanced data panels. The study retrieves the samples from the companies listed on the ASEAN Stock Exchange that published sustainability reports from 2015 to 2019. The research finding shows that the board’s independence, board diversity, and sustainability commitment are significantly associated with the quality sustainability reports. Moreover, the board size indicates a low effect on the reliability and the chief sustainability officer on the conciseness of sustainability reports. Meanwhile, it has not been possible to prove that the presence of sustainability committee can lead effect on the report quality. The sustainability commitment also moderates female directors and the quality of sustainability reports. Other findings are obtained from the company’s characteristics where company size and type of industry are positively correlated with the quality of sustainability reports. This study has several limitations. First, some companies that are under observation spend money on social costs, but the amounts are not clearly disclosed. Second, this research only focuses on three quality aspects: conciseness, clarity, and reliability. These research findings contribute to the following scopes. First, how green governance and commitment to sustainability help improve the quality of corporate reporting. Second, the investors should invest in companies that apply good green governance and sustainability commitment. Third, companies with strong commitments to sustainability and good corporate governance are competitive resources that support businesses in growing, attracting more investment, and earning stakeholders’ trust. Lastly, this research also contributes to the agency and the resource-based view theories related to the green governance and the sustainability reports’ quality of ASEAN countries.

Chief sustainability officer expertise, sustainability-related executive compensation and corporate biodiversity disclosure: empirical evidence for the European capital market

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to examine the relationship among chief sustainability officer (CSO) expertise, sustainability-related executive compensation (SEC) and biodiversity disclosure (BD).Design/methodology/approachBased on legitimacy and upper echelons theory, this study uses both random-effects and logit regressions and looks at the 2014–2019 financial years of companies listed on the STOXX Europe 600 (1,992 firm-year observations).FindingsThe findings of this study are in line with prior research on sustainable corporate governance and indicate that CSO sustainability expertise significantly increases BD and that SEC strengthens this relationship as a moderating variable. The results of this study are robust to a battery of sensitivity analyses.Originality/valueThis study makes a major contribution to prior analyses, as this appears to be the first on the link among CSO expertise, SEC and BD, as per the author’s knowledge. This study has major implications for business practice, regulators and research.

The effect of chief sustainability officers on sustainability reporting—A management perspective

AbstractMore and more companies worldwide are appointing a chief sustainability officer (CSO) to anchor the topic of sustainability at the top management level. This study examines how a CSO on the management board influences the quantity and quality of sustainability reports. While quantity is measured by the amount of information disclosed (sustainability disclosure), quality is measured as the decision for external assurance of the sustainability report, using the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines as a reporting framework and publishing a combined report. Using a sample of German listed companies for the years 2017–2020, regression analysis is first conducted to analyse the impact of CSOs on sustainability reports. Second, the study shows how a chief executive officer (CEO) and a chief financial officer (CFO) impact sustainability reports when they also serve as CSOs. The results suggest that CSOs improve sustainability disclosure. In addition, a CSO positively impacts the decision for external assurance of the sustainability report but shows no impact on using the GRI guidelines and publishing a combined report. The results also show that a CFO positively influences sustainability disclosure, while a CEO does not. This study contributes to the growing literature on sustainable governance and how having a CSO on the management board impacts sustainability reporting. The study has numerous implications for regulators and practitioners. The most important insight is which management position should be responsible for sustainability to improve reporting and the limitations of that decision.

Sustainability competencies and its link to innovation capabilities

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to study individual sustainability competencies and its linkage toward building innovation capabilities. This study explores the interrelations between individual-level competencies with organizational-level capabilities.Design/methodology/approachThematic content analysis is used to analyze the qualitative interview data from 22 experts working in the sustainability departments of large corporations in India. The respondents were chief sustainability officers, sustainability managers or general managers responsible for driving sustainability in their organizations.FindingsThis study identifies individual sustainability competencies into two sets. First being cognitive competencies and the second being emotional competencies. The cognitive competencies identified are systems thinking, future orientation and perspective-taking (cognitive empathy). The affective or emotional competencies identified are connectedness to nature, sense of transcendence of time and empathic concern. The competencies enhanced innovation through the development of stakeholder capabilities and organizational learning capabilities.Research limitations/implicationsThis study provides new insight regarding the link between both cognitive and emotional competencies and organizational capabilities for innovation.Practical implicationsThis study appraises the role of individual sustainability competencies on innovation. This study indicates the importance of developing sustainability competencies at the individual level to drive innovation.Originality/valueThis paper provides novel insights on sustainability competencies and its link with innovation. The conceptualization of competencies was made as cognitive and emotional skills. Furthermore, its relationship with innovation capabilities advance the understanding of the individual contribution to innovation.

Comments: Climate Change Ambitions vs. Actions

A recent Deloitte survey of 2,000 C-level executives about sustainability in their businesses was published with the tagline, “The disconnect between ambition and impact.” Execs, of whom 20% were involved in “energy, resources, and industrials,” have become more concerned about climate over the past few months but are in many cases picking the low-hanging fruit when it comes to demonstrating a real commitment to make effective changes. Eighty-eight percent agreed that with immediate action, the worst impacts of climate change could be limited. Just 8 months ago, in a similar Deloitte survey, 63% agreed. Bear in mind the pressure to act from their stakeholders also has and continues to escalate. Stakeholders were categorized as regulators/government, board members/management, consumers/clients, civil society (media, activists), shareholders/investors, competitors/peers, employees, and banks/lenders. Yet, the top actions taken by the companies were “easy” ones. For example, using more sustainable materials (67%) vs. developing new climate-friendly products or services (49%), increasing the efficiency of energy use (e.g., in buildings) (66%) vs. requiring suppliers and business partners to meet specific criteria (46%), and reducing air travel post-pandemic (55%) vs. tying execs’ compensation to environmental sustainability performance (37%). Deloitte termed the more difficult actions as “needle-moving.” In each example, the easy actions topped the hard ones by about 20%. Obstacles to moving the needle included difficulty measuring environmental impact and insufficient supply of sustainable or low-emissions inputs, listed by nearly a third and 27%, respectively. Cost was identified by 27%. Deloitte wondered if these were real obstacles, or just low priorities, and added that “many companies may be struggling to translate the cost of climate inaction.” However, the survey results suggest that cost may not be the overriding concern. Rather, the measurement of improvement is not yet well defined, and the availability of and/or access to proven, dependable lower-emissions technology is lagging. Sarah Chapman, global chief sustainability officer at financial services provider Manulife, commented in the survey, “Measurement and disclosure are complicated partially because there isn’t one standardization or framework. Understanding our Scope 3 emissions within our investment portfolio is challenging because we rely either on other companies’ reporting or on estimations.” She makes a valid point—the US Environmental Protection Agency describes 15 categories of Scope 3 emissions, which include emissions both upstream and downstream of an organization’s activities. The Scope 3 emissions for one organization are the Scope 1 and 2 emissions of another organization. That requires a great deal of trust in others’ transparency and honesty, or even their understanding and ability to accurately report. Consider the easy, low-hanging fruit as the first attempts to test the needle’s movement. Standardization of science-based measurement and disclosure, transparency, and proven technology may well be the trifecta that pushes the needle in the direction of tackling the hard changes needed in valid, meaningful ways.

An Economic Impact Analysis of the US Biobased Products Industry

Industrial BiotechnologyVol. 17, No. 5 Industry ReportAn Economic Impact Analysis of the US Biobased Products IndustryJesse Daystar, Robert Handfield, Jay S. Golden, Eric McConnell, and Janire Pascual-GonzalezJesse DaystarJesse Daystar, Ph.D. is an Assistant Adjunct Professor at the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University and at the Department of Forest Biomaterials at North Carolina State University. He also serves as the Chief Sustainability Officer and Vice President of Sustainability at Cotton Incorporated. Daystar has Ph.D. and M.S. degrees in Forest Biomaterials, and he has B.S. degrees in Chemical and Pulp & Paper Engineering from North Carolina State University. E-mail Address: Jesse.Daystar@duke.eduNicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC, USADepartment of Forest Biomaterials and North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USASearch for more papers by this author, Robert HandfieldDepartment of Business Management, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USASearch for more papers by this author, Jay S. GoldenMaxwell School, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NC, USASearch for more papers by this author, Eric McConnellSchool of Agricultural Sciences & Forestry at Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA, USASearch for more papers by this author, and Janire Pascual-GonzalezDivision of Research, Economic Development, and Engagement, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USASearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:15 Oct 2021https://doi.org/10.1089/ind.2021.29263.jdaAboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail View articleFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byApproaches in Sustainable, Biobased Multilayer Packaging Solutions26 February 2023 | Polymers, Vol. 15, No. 5Life-Cycle Assessment of Biochemicals with Clear Near-Term Market Potential6 February 2023 | ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 7 Volume 17Issue 5Oct 2021 InformationCopyright 2021, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishersTo cite this article:Jesse Daystar, Robert Handfield, Jay S. Golden, Eric McConnell, and Janire Pascual-Gonzalez.An Economic Impact Analysis of the US Biobased Products Industry.Industrial Biotechnology.Oct 2021.259-270.http://doi.org/10.1089/ind.2021.29263.jdaPublished in Volume: 17 Issue 5: October 15, 2021Online Ahead of Print:October 8, 2021PDF download