Programa del congreso

Objective: This study aims to examine the impact of board gender diversity (BGD) on the environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance across several differentiated sectors in the EU-27. Thus, we could understand how sector-specific characteristics moderate it.

Theoretical framework: Drawing on the critical mass and resource dependence theories, this study aims to contribute advance in the understanding that board diversity, specifically gender.

Methodology: OLS estimations are implemented for a sample of more than 18,000 European companies. Five very different sectors are represented.

Results: The research finds robust support for a positive association between BGD and overall ESG scores. However, the existence of factors such as the industry in which firms operate may limit the benefits of diversity, which suggests that this association may differ according to the context. Industry-specific analyses highlight distinct patterns: finance sectors demonstrate a linear correlation between BGD and ESG outcomes, while manufacturing sectors show different configurations. Notably, the mining industry exhibits an intriguing pattern of ESG performance, peaking when women on boards are either a minority or a majority.

Contribution: This study underscores the strategic importance of gender diversity in enhancing corporate sustainability, advocating for tailored strategies aligned with industry dynamics.

Using a Spanish sample from 2018 to 2022, we study whether institutional investors that sign the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), a commitment to responsible investing, impulse firms to exhibit better readability in their CSR reports. We find that socially responsible investors (SRI) perform to ensure a lower level of linguistic complexity in CSR reporting and better readability, which is especially relevant in non-financial disclosure, which is more qualitative than quantitative. We further show differences at the industry and geographic levels, showing that the positive influence of the SRI on the readability of CSR reports is more pronounced (i) in firms operating in environmentally sensitive firms (e.g. forestry, metals mining, coalmining, oil and gas exploration); and (ii) when the PRI signatory investor is from Europe. Overall, these results suggest that the SRI can play a significant role in improving the clarity and accessibility of CSR reports, particularly in contexts where environmental impact is a critical concern. Furthermore, our findings highlight the importance of institutional investors’ geographical origins, likely reflecting Europe’s stricter ESG regulatory environment.

This study examines the relationship between boards and corporate acquisition activity. Specifically, we posit that boards with directors who have been politicians positively influence the propensity to pursue acquisitions and that ESG performance (divided into environmental, social and governance scores) moderates this relationship. Our results provide evidence of the positive influence of former politicians on acquisitions, suggesting that their political connections and their understanding of the regulatory landscape may mitigate the risks associated with acquisitions and enhance the likelihood of acquiring other firms. Our research also demonstrates the critical role of sustainable initiatives so that firms with strong ESG performance are better positioned to address the challenges associated with acquisitions. It may indicate that stakeholders —such as investors, customers and communities— are more likely to support acquisitions by companies that demonstrate a commitment to sustainability practices. Therefore, our results have implications for the acquisitions’ strategic management, highlighting the need for firms to carefully consider how their boards are composed. It is no longer sufficient to focus only on the skills and resources that directors bring to the firm (i.e. former politicians) but also to ensure that board members are aligned with the firm’s ESG initiatives.

Economic sustainability is a critical yet often underdeveloped component of corporate sustainability assessment. Traditional Life Cycle Costing (LCC) provides a cost-based perspective but lacks the ability to capture long-term financial resilience and strategic adaptability. This study introduces the Organizational Economic Sustainability Assessment (O-ESA) model, a novel framework that integrates midpoint indicators (value-creating capabilities, economic equilibrium, financial equilibrium, and equity equilibrium) with endpoint indices (business stability, corporate stability, and economic sustainability). Grounded in Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) and corporate sustainability theories, this research applies the O-ESA model to the Italian and Spanish ceramic industries. Using a mixed-methods approach, the study combines empirical economic data from the Top 20 companies in both countries with comparative analysis of industry-wide trends from 2018 to 2023. Findings reveal that economic sustainability is strongly influenced by external market shocks, energy crises, and corporate governance practices, highlighting the need for integrated financial and sustainability assessment models. The study provides theoretical contributions by expanding LCT beyond LCC and offers practical implications for ESG reporting, governance, and corporate risk management. Future research should refine weighting mechanisms for economic indicators and explore O-ESA’s applicability across other industries.

This study addresses a critical debate in sustainable finance, whether ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investments inherently expose investors to greater financial losses. By analyzing the downside-to-upside volatility of ESG and conventional funds, we examine whether the ESG label itself signals increased risk or whether ESG risk scores provide a more accurate evaluation of investment risk. The findings reveal that once the influence of different investment styles is taken into account, most ESG labels no longer have a clear statistical impact, except for exclusionary policies that are linked to a lower exposure to financial losses. Similarly, ESG risk scores lose significance under the same conditions. Using random forest models, the findings highlight the importance of exclusion criteria and ESG risk scores as predictors. These results challenge the misconception that ESG funds are inherently riskier and suggest utilizing ESG risk metrics to enhance portfolio resilience.