Determinants and results of Corporate Social Responsibility as a stakeholder engagement tool

INTERNATIONAL DOCTORAL SCHOOL OF THE USC María Garrido Ruso PhD Thesis DETERMINANTS AND RESULTS OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AS A STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT TOOL Santiago de Compostela, 2022 Doctoral Programme in Economics and Business TESIS DE DOCTORADO DETERMINANTS AND RESULTS OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AS A STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT TOOL María Garrido Ruso ESCUELA DE DOCTORADO INTERNACIONAL DE LA USC PROGRAMA DE DOCTORADO EN ECONOMÍA Y EMPRESA SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA 2022 DECLARACIÓN DEL AUTOR/A DE LA TESIS D./Dña. María Garrido Ruso Título da tese: Determinants and results of Corporate Social Responsibility as a stakeholder engagement tool Presento mi tesis, siguiendo el procedimiento adecuado al Reglamento y declaro que: 1) La tesis abarca los resultados de la elaboración de mi trabajo. 2) De ser el caso, en la tesis se hace referencia a las colaboraciones que tuvo este trabajo. 3) Confirmo que la tesis no incurre en ningún tipo de plagio de otros autores ni de trabajos presentados por mí para la obtención de otros títulos. 4) La tesis es la versión definitiva presentada para su defensa y coincide la versión impresa con la presentada en formato electrónico. Y me comprometo a presentar el Compromiso Documental de Supervisión en el caso que el original no esté depositado en la Escuela. En Santiago de Compostela, 11 de Julio de 2022. Firma electrónica AUTORIZACIÓN DEL DIRECTOR / TUTOR DE LA TESIS [Determinants and results of Corporate Social Responsibility as a stakeholder engagement tool] D./Dª. BEATRIZ AIBAR GUZMÁN INFORMA/N: Que la presente tesis, se corresponde con el trabajo realizado por D/Dª. María Garrido Ruso, bajo mi dirección/tutorización, y a utorizo su presentación , considerando que reúne l os r equisitos exigidos en el R eglamento de Estudios de Doctorado de la USC, y que como director de esta no incurre en las causas de abstención establecidas en la Ley 40/2015. De acuerdo con lo indicado en el Reglamento de Estudios de Doctorado, declara también que la presente tesis doctoral es idónea para ser defendida en base a la modalidad de Monográfica con reproducción de publicaciones, en los que la participación del doctorando/a fue decisiva para su elaboración y las publicaciones se ajustan al Plan de Investigación. En Santiago de Compostela, 11 de Julio de 2022. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS During all these years of work I have gone through different feelings and it has not always been easy to face the challenge of the PhD. For this reason, seeing this work become a reality is enormously satisfying for me. Without a doubt, there are many people who are responsible for me being here today, but I have to make special mention of a few. First of all, to my director Beatriz Aibar. The road has been difficult but I am immensely happy to see that we have been able to redirect it until we are here today. Thank you for the hours of work, for capturing your knowledge and for showing me that capacity of work. I also want to thank Professor Luis Otero, since without his help it would not have been possible to finish this project. Thank you Luis because I have always found words of encouragement in you and you have given me a lot of light along the way. Thanks to Celia López. Since I entered this faculty, the only thing I have received from you has been affection. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Thanks also to Loreto Fernández, who has always understood and prioritized the time I had to dedicate to my thesis when organizing the department. And of course, thanks to all the colleagues in the Department of Financial Economics and Accounting for always having words of encouragement towards me and always encouraging me to continue with this project and to find a place for myself in the department. Thanks to Adrián and Rulas, because without a doubt, running into them halfway has made it much more fun. And thanks to my friends, my family and Rubén, for your patience and love during these years. LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1. .................................................................................................................................................................. 135 Appendix 2. .................................................................................................................................................................. 136 LIST OF ACRONYMS AIC - Akaike information criterion BRICS - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa CEO – Chief Executive Officer CI - Confidence interval CSR - Corporate Social Responsibility CSRD - Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive EFRAG - European Financial Reporting Advisory Group ESG - Environmental, Social and Governance EU - European Union GRI - Global Reporting Initative JCR - Journal Citation Report MDGs - Millennium Development Goals MSCI- Morgan Stanley Capital Internacional NIY – Normaliced Citations per Year OC - Organizational Commitment OI - Organizational Identification TI - Turnover Intentions ROA – Return On Assets ROE – Return on Equity SDGs - Sustainable Development Goals SMEs – Small and Medium Enterprises S&P - Standard & Poor's UET - Upper Echelons Theory UN –United Nations ABSTRACT The concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has undergone a considerable evolution over time. In this evolution, stakeholders’ concerns and demands have acquired a growing importance to the point that, at present, CSR is intrinsically linked to stakeholder engagement. From an instrumental perspective, engaging with stakeholders has an impact on a firm’s performance, both directly and indirectly. Accordingly, stakeholder engagement should be a fundamental aspect of business strategy, so that it takes into account stakeholders’ interests and requirements. This is especially true in the field of CSR. CSR requires that companies engage with their internal and external stakeholders in order to identify and meet their expectations regarding social and environmental issues. Therefore, stakeholder engagement should to be integrated into the firm’s CSR strategy and activities. In this sense, the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have supposed a turn in CSR strategies entailing a renewed emphasis on stakeholders characterized by a proactive approach which allows companies to identify directions towards sustainability, based on the most pertinent SDGs to their field of business, in such a way that they can generate the desired impacts on stakeholders, the environment, and society. Thus, the extent to which corporate strategies are aligned with the SDGs can be considered an indicator of the firm’s sustainability success. The 2030 Agenda is linked with CSR strategies and, like them, commitment to the SDGs can provide companies tangible and intangible economic benefits. This requires that companies communicate relevant information about their contribution to the SDGs to stakeholders. In this regard, although corporate transparency is considered a precondition for stakeholder engagement, many Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) frameworks fail to consider key aspects of business engagement with stakeholders that are critical for understanding the impact of the companies’ strategies and activities on the SDGs. Since it has been shown that the study of exogenous factors is not enough to explain the adoption of CSR practices by companies or the relationship between CSR and financial performance, it is necessary to expand the range of analyzed factors in order to integrate into the analysis aspects related to personal and behavioral factors related to CSR and their implications for business performance. This research project is motivated by the desire of covering this gap in literature. The general objective of this research project is to analyze the determinants and results of CSR as a stakeholder engagement tool. As indicated above, our focus of analysis is on the aspects related to personal and behavioral factors related to CSR and their implications for business performance. Specifically, we focus on the implications that the perception of CSR activities by employees has on their work-related attitudes and behaviors, understanding that employees are key stakeholders for the achievement of organizational objectives. Likewise, the attributes or idiosyncratic characteristics of the companies’ Chief Executive Officer (CEO) that affect business transparency through the disclosure of information related to CSR activities and performance are analyzed, considering that she/he exercises a great influence on corporate strategies and decisions. Finally, in order to "close the circle" we delve into the relationship between CSR performance and business performance and, specifically, how CSR favors the latter. In view that the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs suppose a “paradigm shift” for academic research on CSR, the study of the above issues is carried out from the perspective of business contribution to the SDGs. Accordingly, in order to contextualize the study, the analysis of the state of the art in research on the implications of the SDGs for business strategies and the role that companies have to contribute to the fulfillment of the SDGs is carried out. We perform a bibliometric analysis on the papers focused on business strategies concerning the SDGs published from 2015 to 2021 in journals indexed on Scopus database to provide a reference frame of the state-of-art of the businesses’ role of in the fulfillment of SDGs, which can orientate researchers in the development of future studies on this subject. Moreover, we carry out a meta-analysis through which prior research’s findings were integrated with the aim of providing a conclusive response regarding the conditions under which CSR affect employees’ work-related attitudes. We show that CSR does not have a universal positive impact on employees’ work-related attitudes (increasing OI and OC and reducing TI), but it depends on certain conditions, and we document under what circumstances this effect is stronger/weaker or even opposite. Thus, we offer a complete picture and provide a deeper understanding on how CSR affects employees’ work-related attitudes documenting the moderating effect of seven contextual factors (country, industry, and national culture’s dimensions) and five personal traits (gender, age, educational background, organizational tenure, and position). For the rest of the work we focus on the Spanish context. To analyze the relationship between the idiosyncratic characteristics of the CEOs and the SDG disclosure we focus on companies listed on the IBEX 35, whereas regarding the analysis of the relationship between ESG and firm performance we analyze Spanish Small and Medium Eneterprises (SMEs). In this case, the information was collected through a survey carried out by email and over the telephone at the end of 2018. Our results we contribute increase the available literature on the role of CEO’s personal characteristics in business decision-making, providing new evidence on a highly emerging research topic. In this respect, considering that, despite the key role that companies must play in the achieving of the SDGs, their participation continues to be modest and is conditioned by firm size and corporate effort, our findings stress the importance of “choosing the CEO well” for overcoming the challenging task to reaching the 2030 Agenda. Specifically, those companies with CEOs with a high level education, locals, and with high level of narcissism will disclose more information about SDGs. Finally, having detected the measurement problem surrounding CSR performance, we contribute to literature developing a robust measure of the level of ESG implementation and quality (composed of 63 variables grouped into four dimensions: environmental social, labor, and governance). Our index is mainly designed to reflect ESG performance of SMEs and non-listed companies, for which the main international organizations that assess ESG performance (e.g., Bloomberg, Thomson Reuters, Standard & Poor's) do not provide information. We also respond to the call for more studies about the relationship between sustainability and financial performance as well as on the mediators and moderators of CSR-financial performance relationship. Form a practical perspective, we show that CSR is a tool that provides a higher level of resilience to companies, especially in the case of those firms that present a higher value of the ESG index in the labor and social dimensions. This has particular importance in the context that we are experiencing due to the effects of COVID-19 pandemic on economy worldwide. Keywords: stakeholder engagement, corporate social responsibility, Agenda 2030, sustainability reporting, financial performance, ESG performance RESUMEN CASTELLANO El concepto de Responsabilidad Social Corporativa (RSC) ha sufrido una evolución considerable a lo largo del tiempo. En esta evolución, las preocupaciones y demandas de los grupos de interés han adquirido una importancia creciente hasta el punto de que, en la actualidad, la RSC está intrínsecamente ligada a la participación de los grupos de interés. Desde una perspectiva instrumental, comprometerse con las partes interesadas tiene un impacto en el desempeño de una empresa, tanto directa como indirectamente. En consecuencia, la participación de las partes interesadas debe ser un aspecto fundamental de la estrategia comercial, de modo que tenga en cuenta sus intereses y requisitos. Esto es especialmente cierto en el campo de la RSC, que requiere que las empresas se comprometan con sus grupos de interés internos y externos para identificar y cumplir con sus expectativas en materia social y ambiental. Por lo tanto, la participación de las partes interesadas debe integrarse en la estrategia y las actividades de RSC de la empresa. En este sentido, la Agenda 2030 y los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS) han supuesto un giro en las estrategias de RSC que implica un renovado énfasis en los grupos de interés caracterizados por un enfoque proactivo que permite a las organizaciones identificar rumbos hacia la sostenibilidad, a partir de los ODS más pertinentes para su ámbito empresarial, de tal forma que puedan generar los impactos deseados en los grupos de interés, el medio ambiente y la sociedad. Por lo tanto, la medida en que las estrategias corporativas estén alineadas con los ODS puede considerarse un indicador del éxito de la sostenibilidad de la empresa. La Agenda 2030 está vinculada a las estrategias de RSC y, como ellas, el compromiso con los ODS puede aportar a las empresas beneficios económicos tangibles e intangibles. Esto requiere que las empresas comuniquen información relevante sobre su contribución a los ODS a las partes interesadas. En este sentido, aunque la transparencia corporativa se considera una condición previa para la participación de las partes interesadas, muchos marcos Ambientales, Sociales y de Gobernanza no consideran aspectos clave de la participación empresarial con las partes interesadas que son fundamentales para comprender el impacto de las estrategias y actividades de las empresas en los ODS. Dado que se ha demostrado que el estudio de los factores exógenos no es suficiente para explicar la adopción de prácticas de RSC por parte de las empresas o la relación entre la RSC y el desempeño financiero, es necesario ampliar el rango de factores analizados para integrar en el análisis los aspectos relacionados con factores personales y de comportamiento relacionados con la RSC y sus implicaciones para el desempeño empresarial. Este proyecto de investigación está motivado por el deseo de cubrir este vacío en la literatura. El objetivo general de este proyecto de investigación es analizar los determinantes y resultados de la RSC como herramienta de”stakeholder engagement”. Como se indicó anteriormente, nuestro foco de análisis está en los aspectos relacionados con los factores personales y de comportamiento relacionados con la RSC y sus implicaciones para el desempeño empresarial. En concreto, nos centramos en las implicaciones que la percepción de las actividades de RSC por parte de los empleados tiene sobre sus actitudes y comportamientos relacionados con el trabajo, entendiendo que los empleados son actores clave para la consecución de los objetivos organizacionales. Asimismo, se analizan los atributos o características idiosincrásicas del Director General (CEO) de las empresas que inciden en la transparencia empresarial a través de la divulgación de información relacionada con las actividades y desempeño de la RSC, considerando que ejerce una gran influencia en las estrategias y decisiones corporativas. Finalmente, intentamos “cerrar el círculo” profundizando en la relación entre el desempeño de la RSC y el desempeño empresarial y, en concreto, cómo la RSC favorece a este último. Además, en vista de que la Agenda 2030 y los ODS suponen un “cambio de paradigma” para la investigación académica en RSC, el estudio de las cuestiones anteriores se realizará desde la perspectiva de la contribución empresarial a los ODS. En consecuencia, con el fin de contextualizar el estudio, se realizará el análisis del estado del arte en la investigación sobre las implicaciones de los ODS para las estrategias empresariales y el papel que tienen las empresas para contribuir al cumplimiento de los ODS. Para ello, realizamos un análisis bibliométrico de los artículos enfocados en estrategias empresariales en torno a los ODS publicados entre 2015 y 2021 en revistas indexadas en la base de datos Scopus para proporcionar un marco de referencia del estado del arte del papel de las empresas en el cumplimiento de los ODS. lo que puede orientar a los investigadores en el desarrollo de futuros estudios sobre este tema. Además, llevamos a cabo un metaanálisis en el que se integraron los resultados de investigaciones anteriores con el fin de dar una respuesta concluyente sobre las condiciones en las que la RSC afecta las actitudes laborales de los empleados. Mostramos que la RSC no tiene un impacto positivo universal en las actitudes relacionadas con el trabajo de los empleados (aumentando la identificación con la organización, el compromiso y reduciendo las intenciones de rotación), pero depende de ciertas condiciones, y documentamos bajo qué circunstancias este efecto es más fuerte/débil o incluso opuesto. Para el resto del trabajo nos centramos en el contexto español. Para analizar la relación entre las características idiosincrásicas de los consejeros delegados y la divulgación de los ODS pondremos el foco en las empresas que cotizan en el IBEX 35, mientras que en cuanto al análisis de la relación entre ESG y el rendimiento de las empresas analizamos las PYMES españolas. En este caso, la información se recopiló a través de una encuesta realizada a fines de 2018. Los resultados que aportamos aumentan la literatura disponible sobre el papel de las características personales del CEO en la toma de decisiones empresariales, proporcionando nueva evidencia sobre un tema de investigación muy emergente. En este sentido, teniendo en cuenta que, a pesar del papel clave que deben jugar las empresas en la consecución de los ODS, su participación sigue siendo modesta y está condicionada por el tamaño de la empresa y el esfuerzo corporativo, nuestros hallazgos destacan la importancia de “elegir bien al CEO” por superar la desafiante tarea de alcanzar la Agenda 2030. Concretamente, aquellas empresas con CEOs con una mayor formación, locales y con altos niveldes de narcisisimo divulgarán más información sobre los ODS. Finalmente, habiendo detectado el problema de medición en torno al desempeño de la RSE, cotribuimos a la literatura desarrollando una medida robusta del nivel de implementación y calidad de ESG (compuesta por 63 variables agrupadas en cuatro dimensiones: ambiental, social, laboral y de gobernanza). Nuestro índice está diseñado principalmente para reflejar el desempeño ESG de las pymes y empresas no cotizadas, para las cuales las principales organizaciones internacionales que evalúan el desempeño ESG (por ejemplo, Bloomberg, Thomson Reuters, Standard & Poor's) no brindan información. Desde una perspectiva práctica, mostramos que la RSC es una herramienta que proporciona un mayor nivel de resiliencia a las empresas, especialmente en el caso de aquellas firmas que presentan un mayor valor del índice ESG en las dimensiones laboral y social. Esto tiene particular importancia en el contexto que estamos viviendo por los efectos de la pandemia del COVID-19 en la economía a nivel mundial. Keywords: stakeholder engagement, corporate social responsibility, Agenda 2030, sustainability reporting, financial performance, ESG performance 1 INTRODUCTION 1. OVERVIEW The concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has undergone a considerable evolution over time, adapting like a “chameleon” (Sarkar & Searcy, 2016) to changes in society and the business environment (Latapí Agudelo et al., 2019) and in the motivations of companies to undertake this type of initiatives (ElAlfy et al., 2020). In this evolution, stakeholders’ concerns and demands have acquired a growing importance (Lane & Devin, 2018) to the point that, at present, CSR is intrinsically linked to stakeholder engagement (García-Sánchez et al., 2020a). Stakeholder engagement can be understood as those practices carried out by an organization to involve stakeholders in organizational activities (Greenwood, 2007) in a “mutually beneficial and just scheme of cooperation” (Phillips, 1997, p. 54). Thus, it entails to know stakeholders’ demands and try to satisfy them (Høvring et al., 2018). In this sense, given that the set of a company’s stakeholders is broad, encompassing a variety individuals, groups, and organizations that, directly and indirectly, can affect or are affected by the company’s activities (Freeman, 1984) whose objectives and interests are also diverse (O’Riordan & Fairbrass, 2008), stakeholder engagement extends to a variety of organizational areas and activities (Greenwood, 2007), including, among other, strategic planning, human resource management, and social reporting. As Noland and Phillips noted (2010, p. 40), “for firms merely to interact with stakeholders is no longer sufficient, if, in fact, it ever was. Interaction with stakeholders is a logically necessary activity of business”. Given its importance for the company's survival and success, stakeholder engagement has been extensively analyzed in literature, both theoretically and practically, from diverse streams and focusing on different issues, which has led to a lack of a “unified understanding” of its essentials (Kujala et al., 2022), being usual to mix stakeholder engagement and stakeholder management up (Nair, 2020). Although, Greenwood (2007, p. 325) suggested that stakeholder engagement is mainly “a morally neutral activity”, in fact three components (i.e., moral, strategic, and pragmatic) characterize stakeholder engagement (Kujala et al., 2022). The moral component recognizes ethical concerns behind co-operation with stakeholders implying fairness and openness (Nollan & Phillips, 2010). The strategic component refers to the influence of the organization’s strategic interests on stakeholder engagement activities looking for attaining competitive advantages (van Huijstee & Glasbergen, 2008), though this does not necessarily mean that there are false and malevolent motivations behind stakeholder engagement (Nollan & Phillips, 2010). Finally, the pragmatic component emphasizes the practical effects of stakeholder engagement on stakeholders’ life (Voparil & Bernstein, 2010). From an instrumental perspective, engaging with stakeholders has an impact on a firm’s performance, both directly and indirectly (Ayuso et al., 2014; Jones et al., 2018; Gupta et al., 2020; Shayan et al., 2022). Accordingly, stakeholder engagement “ought to be part of a firm’s larger strategy” (Nollan & Phillips, 2010, p. 41) so that it takes into account stakeholders’ interests and 8 resilience to companies, especially in the case of those firms that present a higher value of the ESG index in the labor and social dimensions. This has particular importance in the context that we are experiencing due to the effects of COVID-19 pandemic on economy worldwide. 6. THESIS STRUCTURE The structure of the thesis responds to the research questions raised to achieve our objectives. This thesis comprises four main chapters, in addition to this introduction (in which we briefly outline this research project’s motivations and objectives and present CSR as a stakeholder engagement tool) and the conclusions chapter. Chapter 1 analyzes the scope of existing literature about the role that companies have in contributing to the fulfillment on SDGs through a bibliometric analysis of 196 papers published from 2015 to 2021 in Scopus journals. In view of the “paradigm shift” for academic research on CSR that the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs suppose, this chapter allows us to contextualize our research, considering CSR and stakeholder engagement from the perspective of business contribution to the SDGs. Chapter 2 deals with corporate engagement with a key stakeholder group: employees. On the one hand, as Monteiro et al. (2021) point out, “a company’s CSR agenda is considered unfeasible if it does not take into account the physical and emotional well-being of its employees”. On the other hand, involvement in CSR practices by a company can play a role in motivating its employees, positively affecting business performance by strengthening the bond between employees and the firm. Thus, in this chapter a meta-analysis based 42 studies published in peer-reviewed journals is performed with the aim of analyze the conditions under which CSR affects employees’ workrelated attitudes and, therefore, enhances corporate engagement with this stakeholder group. Chapter 3 delves into the drivers of stakeholder engagement. Specifically, considering that a company’s CEO exercises a great influence on corporate strategies and decisions (García-Sánchez et al., 2020) and that transparency constitutes a precondition for stakeholder engagement (Høvring et al., 2018), in this chapter we analyze the effect of several CEO’s attributes and idiosyncratic characteristics on business transparency regarding business contribution to the SDGs. Chapter 4 aims to "close the circle" by examining how CSR performance affects business performance and risk, focusing the study in a context of economic crisis derived from the COVID- 19 pandemic. We also address in this chapter the problems derived from the lack of uniformity in CSR measuring. 9 CHAPTER 1. BUSINESSES’ ROLE IN THE FULFILLMENT OF THE 2030 AGENDA: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS Garrido-Ruso, M.; Aibar-Guzmán, B.; Monteiro, A.P. Businesses’ Role in The Fulfillment of the 2030 Agenda: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 2022, 14(14), 8754. Publisher: MDPI, ISSN: 2071-1050 DOI: 10.3390/su14148754 1.1 INTRODUCTION The world is changing and the impact that activities have on our planet is provoking more and more negative consequences, which has meant that the main institutions worldwide have made a global commitment necessary to stop this deterioration. That is why the United Nations (UN, 2015) proposed to continue the world’s economic development in a sustainable way (Mozas-Moral et al., 2021) and established the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in September 2000 (UN, 2015; Santos & Bastos, 2020; Mozas-Moral et al., 2021). Fifteen years later, more ambitious goals were set to continue on the path of the MDGs, and the UN defined the 2030 Agenda and their 17 SDGs with the intention of achieving a better world (Bukalska et al., 2021; Caputo et al., 2021; Racowski et al., 2021). The main difference between the two proposals is that the SDGs are more global and involve not only government institutions, but also any type of private organization, so that companies can acquire a fundamental role, from this moment, to contribute to sustainable development (Gambetta et al., 2021). The main difference between the MDG and the ODS is that the latter considers that any type of company can provide solutions for greater sustainability. It is about creating value and avoiding damage to the environment by carrying out their activity as little as possible, based on sustainable business models (Verboven & Vanherck, 2016). Therefore, companies worldwide can play a fundamental role in the fulfillment of the 2030 Agenda (Rosati and Faria, 2019). During the last few years, a stream of research about the implications of the SDGs for business strategies started. This study aims to analyze the state of the art in such research with the intention of determining the main issues surrounding this topic. The methodology followed was a bibliometric analysis of papers focused on the role that companies have in contributing to the fulfillment of the SDGs published from 2015 to 2021 in journals indexed on the Scopus database. We evaluated the temporal evolution of publications, the number of publications per journal and year, the number of publications per country, and the number of publications by author. This study contributes to the SDG literature with a very complete analysis of the existing research on the role that businesses can play in achieving the SDGs and provides a clear summary of the subject. Consequently, we provide a systematization of the extant research on this subject that allows the identification of knowledge flows, active research topics, and lead authors, among other issues. Thus, this study’s findings depict the current status of the research on the role of businesses in the 10 fulfillment of SDGs and provide a frame of reference that could guide researchers regarding the direction of future studies on this subject. The rest of this paper is structured as follows: after this introduction, the next section contextualizes the SDGs and explains the role that companies can play in achieving them. Section 3 contains the empirical framework of the analysis and, consequently, in Section 4, the main findings are presented. Finally, Section 5 presents the main conclusions of the study, the implications of the findings, and some limitations and topics for future researchers. 1.2. THEORY 1.2.1. Sustainable Development Goals The SDGs were defined in September 2015 by the UN at the United Nations General Assembly in New York (De Souza et al., 2021). The highest authorities of more than 150 countries met to approve the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Mozas-Moral et al., 2021). Under the name “Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”, a number of proposals were defined, and the 193 countries that are members of the UN committed to fulfilling this plan (Fei et al., 2021; Loddo et al., 2021Mozas-Moral et al., 2021) The main objective of this meeting was to achieve a commitment to a better world; therefore, the 2030 Agenda included 169 targets and 261 indicators, grouped into 17 SDGs (Figure 2), with the aim of improving our environment by guaranteeing sustainable development in all possible areas (social, economic, and environmental) (UN, 2015; Santos et al., 2020; Gerged & Almontaser, 2021; Rodenburg et al., 2021). Specifically, the 17 objectives are: (1) no poverty, (2) zero hunger, (3) good health and well-being, (4) quality education, (5) gender equality, (6) clean water and sanitation, (7) affordable and clean energy, (8) decent work and economic growth, (9) industry, innovation, and infrastructure, (10) reduced inequalities, (11) sustainable cities and communities, (12) responsible consumption and production, (13) climate action, (14) life below water, (15) life on land, (16) peace, justice, and strong institutions, and (17) partnerships for the goals. Figure 2. Sustainable Development Objectives Source: https://www.un.org/es/sustainable-development-goals, accesed on 23 May 2022. 11 As we can see, most of the SDGs deal with issues as important and serious as human rights, and they cover actions for eradicating inequalities (e.g., poverty, hunger, health, or education) and the bad habits that exist today on our planet, proposing a sustainable way of living (Galleli et al., 2021; Gerged & Amontaser, 2021; Ordonez-Ponce et al., 2021; Sciandra et al., 2021). The exception is SDG 17 “Partnerships for the goals”—this objective is the only one that, instead of establishing a purpose to be achieved, indicates the procedure to be followed to meet the other objectives. Compliance with the SDGs is not just a matter for the public institutions of each country—it is necessary that all agents align themselves to achieving a better world. This means that not only should governments implement policies and actions to meet these goals by 2030, but private organizations should also be involved in these objectives (Racowski & Neto, 2021; Mabe et al., 2021). Moreover, it is necessary to highlight the correlation that exists between the objectives set by the UN. This means that any defined plan to improve one of the 17 objectives will have an impact on the others, so organizations should consider these goals as a whole (Waage et al., 2015; Nilsson et al., 2016; Fei et al., 2021). They should not focus on one specific objective, since the interrelationship that exists between the 17 should lead to the design of a joint action plan to have an impact on several of these objectives (Fei et al., 2021). If the deadlines established by the UN are met, within 8 years, these 17 objectives should have been achieved. That is why, at the beginning of the 2020–2030 decade, the leaders involved in this mission defined a plan to “accelerate the compliance with the SDGs by 2030” (Racowski & Neto, 2021, p. 61). However, no one could imagine that this plan would be threatened by the COVID-19 pandemic (Álvarez et al., 2021; Galleli et al., 2021). In the year 2020, an unthinkable situation in the 21st century caused economic life to remain stagnant and the priority of governments to be managing the health situation that was being experienced. Consequently, the 2030 Agenda became something that remained in the background (Álvarez et al., 2021). Practically, all of the SDGs have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic that we have been experiencing since 2020, but SDG 3 has been affected in a more pronounced way (Galleli et al., 2021). 1.2.2. Business and SDGs As SDG 17 establishes, the SDGs should be achieved by partnerships (Raub & Martín-Rios, 2019). This means that this is not an issue that only affects public institutions or governments— companies are a key element in achieving the SDGs (Bianchi, 2021; Calabrese et al., 2021; Dube, 2021; Khaled et al., 2021; Ordonez-Ponce et al., 2021; van Zanten & van Tulder, 2021). The SDGs are of such magnitude that it is not enough for one actor to commit to them; commitments of businesses, governments, non-governmental organizations, and stakeholders are needed (UN, 2015; Diaz-Sarachaga, 2021; Mozas-Moral et al., 2021; van Zanten & van Tulder, 2021). The UN defend the key role that organizations play in this context. Specifically, the 2030 Agenda states that “we acknowledge the diversity of the private sector, ranging from microenterprises to cooperatives to multinationals. We call upon all businesses to apply their creativity and innovation to solving sustainable development challenges” (UN, 2015 p. 29). Therefore, the question that companies must ask themselves is how to collaborate with SDGs and how to incorporate this into their strategy (Santos & Bastos, 2020; Calabrese et al., 2021; van Zanten and van Tulder, 2021). Organizations must design their business plans from a more sustainable perspective considering two premises: harm the SDGs as little as possible and implement actions to help achieve those goals (e.g., save energy, reduce emissions, circular economy, etc.) (Calabrse et al., 2021; Diaz-Sarachaga, 2021; Lee & Kim, 2021; Liu et al., 2021; Racowski & Neto, 2021; Valverde & Avilés-Palacios, 2021). This is the new challenge for businesses to not just maximize their benefits; now, they must do so in a sustainable way and 12 collaborate with the environment that surrounds us (Liu et al., 2021; van Zanten & van Tulder, 2021). We must consider that, these days, the economic objective is not the only factor that moves an organization. With all of the inequalities and problems mentioned above, it is essential that the commitment of companies to the SDGs has fundamental importance within the organizations, because it is a key tool to be competitive in the long-term (Lee & Kim, 2021). Until recently, the commitment of companies to society was based on specific actions, such as donations or participation in some social activity, but this is not enough (Lee & Kim, 2021). This mission involves a huge complexity for existing companies, since it is very difficult to change the general perspective of work; for startups, or for new companies or entrepreneurs, the idea would be to create a concept from scratch, based on the sustainable economy (Bukalska et al., 2021; Calabrese et al., 2021). Moreover, this is an opportunity for businesses to work in a sustainable way, showing their stakeholders their commitment to CSR activities (Schönherr et al., 2017; Calabrse et al., 2021; Galleli et al., 2021; Ordonez-Ponce et al., 2021). At the beginning of the 2030 Agenda, and after a survey carried out at a company level, “more than 70% of global corporations plan to incorporate SDGs into their business and more than 40% plan to include SDGs in their business strategy within five years” (Lee & Kim, 2021, p. 202). This fundamental role that companies are playing in achieving the SDGs is reflected in the academic field. A stream of research is investigating the relationship between business and the SDGs. It is a relatively new topic, considering that the SDGs were defined in 2015. The main question is how companies can incorporate the SDGs within their corporate strategy (Jonsdottir et al., 2021; van Zanten & van Tulder, 2018). Khaled et al. demonstrated the importance of this topic, affirming that “it is crucial to explore potential frameworks that would guide companies on how they can align their strategies as well as measure and communicate their contribution to the SDGs” (Khaled et al., 2021, p. 1). There are many questions about the relationship between the SDGs and business performance (e.g., if they prioritize SDGs or focus on a global perspective, if they elaborate on SDGs reports, if these activities have economic advantages for companies, and how the SDGs are perceived by their stakeholders) (van Zanten & van Tulder, 2018; García-Sánchez et al., 2020; Calabrese et al., 2021; Diaz-Sarachaga, 2021). Taking into account the fundamental role of companies in contributing to the SDGs, the UN Global Compact, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development elaborated a document, the SDG Compass, to help businesses to include the SDGs in their plans (GRI, 2015). This guide explains to companies how to include the SDGs in their strategy and how they should communicate it so that this information reaches their stakeholders (García-Sánchez et al., 2020, García-Sánchez et al., 2020). Specifically, the SDG Compass defines five steps: (1) Understanding the SDGs; (2) Defining priorities; (3) Setting goals; (4) Integrating; and (5) Reporting. 1.3. DATA AND METHODS 1.3.1. Sample selection With the objective of answering the research question, we conducted a bibliometric analysis. The first step in this process was to select the papers that we were going to analyze. First of all, we started a literature review focused on the topic and, after reviewing a considerable number of articles related to the topic, we defined our search criteria: 1. As we explained before, the SDGs were defined in 2015 by the UN, so we started our search that year and we covered until the year 2021 to be able to analyze all of the possible complete years from its definition to the present; 13 2. Papers were selected from Scopus, because it includes a wide range of studies about this topic, has more journals indexed than the Web of Science, and is a very common tool used for bibliometric studies (Mio et al., 2020; Sweileh, 2020); 3. We focus our search on journal articles, rejecting other results, such as conferences or books chapters, among others; 4. To obtain a more complete and interdisciplinary result, no filter referring to the different areas of knowledge was included; 5. The articles should be written in English; 6. Our search criteria were: “Title, keywords, or abstract”. Following these steps, we introduced into the Scopus database the following search: (TITLE (“SDG”) OR TITLE (“Sustainable Development Goal”) OR TITLE (“SDG*”) OR TITLE (“Sustainable Development Goal*”) OR TITLE (“GLOBAL AGENDA”) OR TITLE (“2030 agenda”) OR TITLE (“Agenda 2030”) OR TITLE (“SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AGENDA”) AND KEY (“SDG”) OR KEY (“SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOAL”) AND ABS (“organisation”) OR ABS (“firm”) OR ABS (“corporat*”) OR ABS (“com pany”) OR ABS (“business”) OR ABS (“ENTERPRISE”) OR ABS (“PRIVATE SECTOR”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (SRCTYPE, “j”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2021) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2020) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2019) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2018) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2017) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2016) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2015)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”)) This search returned 543 empirical and non-empirical studies. Once we obtained these results, we firstly read the abstracts of all of the articles to check if they really dealt with the topic that we wanted to investigate. After this first impression, in which some invalid results were already eliminated, we started the next step, in which each of the authors separately read and analyzed the papers, summarizing their main characteristics, and, subsequently, the results were compared. In this analysis, papers focused on public organizations or those conducted in an academic setting were eliminated. Finally, 196 papers were identified. Figure 3 summarizes the steps taken to obtain the final sample. Figure 3. Search process 1.3.2. Data analysis and procedure Once we obtained our final sample, we analyzed the data using the software VOSviewer, specifically version 1.6.18. It was created by Nees Jan van Eck and Ludo Waltman CWTS Leiden University, The Netherlands, with the objective of “creating maps based on network data and visualizing and exploring maps” (Sweileh, 2020, p. 3). This visualization software package was adopted because of “its powerful user graphic-interface that can generate maps to describe the connections of each analysis unit” (van Eck & Waltman, 2012, p. 304). 14 Although there are other instruments that can be used for conducting literature reviews (e.g., PRISMA-statement and SciMAT), we chose VOSviewer because it has been broadly used in previous studies (Boar et al., Monteiro et al., 2021) 1.4. FINDINGS 1.4.1. Scientific production on the role that business has in the achievement of the SDGs Our analysis shows that we are facing an emerging issue in the academic world. Although it is true that the SDGs were established in 2015, it was not until 2019 that this topic began to gain strength in the literature. This evidence confirms that, initially, compliance with the SDGs was considered the responsibility of public organizations, while, in the last two years, the role of business has been promoted as a fundamental factor when it comes to meeting these objectives. Figure 4 shows the chronological evolution of the publications on the role that businesses play in the achievement of the SDGs since 2015. As can be seen, the research on this topic actually started in 2016. with the work of Scheyvens et al. in the journal Sustainable Development, and increased its presence in the literature from the year 2019 until today. Most papers were published during the last two years, specifically 161, which is 82.14% of the total published papers, so the trend of this topic is clearly increasing. Figure 4. Number of documents by year Table 2 reports the number of publications per journal. We selected journals with five or more articles published about the topic, because the vast majority published four (1 journal), three (3 journals), two (11 journals), or fewer (66 journals) studies. Sustainability is clearly the journal with the highest number of publications, at 50 papers, with a great difference from the second journal, which is the Journal of Cleaner Production, at 15 publications. Table 2. Total number of publications per journal Source Documents Sustainability 50 Journal of Cleaner Production 15 15 Business Strategy and the Environment 7 Sustainable Development 6 Business Strategy and Development 5 Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 5 Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes 5 Source: Scopus database. Figure 5 provides the growth of sources attending to the number of articles published since 2015. The “Sustainability” journal has shown exponential growth in the number of articles published related to SDGs as the number of articles published in this journal in 2015 was 0, which has increased to 23 during the last year. Figure 5. Documents per year by source The fact that we are working with such a novel topic in the academic world means that the authors who are dedicated to investigating this subject have not yet had time to publish a large number of articles on the topic. Figure 6 shows the authors that have published more than two papers about this topic. We can see that the maximum number of articles belonging to a researcher is four, a situation that García-Sánchez, van Tulder, and van Zanten share. 16 Figure 6. Number of documents by author Figure 7 shows the distribution of the papers on the role that businesses have in the achievement of the SDGs. In total, we found more than 50 countries, and 29 with two or fewer publications. In Figure, 6 we included those that have three or more articles about this topic in Scopus. As can be seen, the country that has published the most papers on the role that business has in the achievement of the SDGs is Spain, with 30 articles, followed by the United Kingdom, with 27 papers. In Figure 7, we can see how the countries with the most published studies on this subject are developed countries, specifically, European countries (Spain, the United Kingdom, and Italy), followed by the United States. However, it should be noted that two countries of the BRICS, Brazil and China, are also among the top ten with a higher number of publications. This could mean that these countries are beginning to become involved in compliance with the SDGs, and their companies are already becoming aware of a more sustainable business model. Ali et al. reported on how BRICS countries are making efforts to engage their activities with the SDGs, but the main conclusion is that they are focusing only on some objectives, instead of covering them as a whole (Ali et al., 2018). 17 Figure 7. Documents by country Finally, Table 3 shows the number of publications depending on the organization. To elaborate the table, we considered the most relevant organizations (those that have published three or more articles), since the vast majority have published two (35 institutions) or one (111 organizations). As can be seen, the most productive universities are located in Europe. The University of Salamanca is the only one with five publications. Although the first places belong mostly to European universities, it is worth highlighting the second place of the University of Sao Paulo. Table 3. Documents by organization Organization TP University of Salamanca 5 University of Sao Paulo 4 University Rey Juan Carlos 4 University College London 4 Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam 4 Parthenope University of Naples 4 University of Santiago de Compostela 4 Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University 4 University of Valencia 3 University of Oviedo 3 Vaal University of Technology 3 Massey University 3 Technical University of Denmark 3 University of Waterloo 3 University of the Aegan 3 Syddansk University 3 Copenhagen Business School 3 Uinversity Studi di Roma Tor Vergata 3 Sant'Anna Scuola Universitaria Superiore Pisa 3 London South Bank University 3 University of South Australia 3 Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology 3 Bartlett Faculty of the Built Environment 3 TP: total publications; Source: data collected from Scopus. 1.4.2. Research subtopics 24 4 Ilyas et al. (2020) 26 Environmental Science and Pollution Research Pakistan 42 21 5 Centobelli et al (2020) 18 Technological Forecasting and Social Change Europe 42 21 6 Muhmad and Muhamad (2021) 15 Journal of Sustainable Finance and Investment n.a 11 11 7 Acuti et al. (2020) 55 Cities Italy and Japan 19 9.5 8 Modgil et al. (2020) 119 Production Planning and Control India 18 9 9 De Luca et al. (2020) 25 Sustainability (Switzerland) Italy 12 6 10 Jha and Rangarajan (2020) 98 Sustainable Development India 10 5 11 Santos and Silva Bastos (2021) 52 Social Responsibility Journal Portugal 5 5 12 Adeola et al. (2021) 8 World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development - 4 4 13 Claro and Esteves (2020) 102 Marketing Intelligence and Planning - 8 4 14 Phan et al. (2020) 56 Sustainability (Switzerland) Italy 8 4 15 Liu et al. (2021) 3 Energy Economics China 3 3 16 Chaurasia et al. (2021) 21 Decision Sciences n.a. 2 2 17 Bhaskar and Kumar (2019) 54 Journal of Indian Business Research n.a. 5 1.67 18 Singh and Rahman (2021) 93 Cogent Business and Management India 0 0 19 Gallardo-Vázquez et al. (2021) 66 Sustainability (Switzerland) Spain 0 0 20 Socoliuc et al. (2020) 23 Polish Journal of Environmental Studies Rumania 0 0 21 Yu and Kuo (2021) 20 Sustainability (Switzerland) China 1 1 22 Nobrega et al. (2021) 7 Sustainability (Switzerland) Brazil 0 0 23 Bukalska et al. (2021) 6 Energies Poland 0 0 RO: ranking order; NIY: normalized citations per year; Source: Scopus. - Cluster 5—Business Interactions with the SDGs: Twenty-two papers that analyzed the nexus between business and SDGs, raising questions as to whether the different characteristics of companies cause them to interact differently with SDGs, make up this cluster. The articles with the highest number of links were those by Rygh et al. (2021), van Zanten and van Tulder (2021), and Javeed et al. (2021). With regards to the articles’ impact, the paper with the highest number of citations in relative terms was that by van Zanten and van Tulder (2021), whereas the paper with more total citations was that by Fleming et al. (2017). Conversely, there were three papers with no citations. Almost all of the articles belonging to this cluster were written by multiple authors (17 papers), whereas there were five publications by single authors. The authors with a higher number of publications were van Tulder, R., and van Zanten, J.A., with three papers each. Within this subtopic, the journal with more papers published was Sustainability (four papers), followed by Business Strategy and Development (three papers), Business Strategy and the Environment (two papers), and Corporate Governance (two papers). The first published article of this cluster dated 25 from 2017, and the year with more publications was 2021, with 13 papers published during that year. Table 8 shows the papers belonging to this cluster, their journal, the number of links between papers, the country or region of study, and their impact or influence measured by the total number of citations and the average number of citations per year from the date of publication (NIY) (Castelló-Sirvent, 2022). It should be noted that the last column reflects the “acceleration” of the impact in time weighting. Thus, under equal conditions of the date of publication, the greater the NIY, the greater the academic interest in the paper. Table 8. Cluster 5 RO Author Links Journal Country Citations NIY 1 van Zanten and van Tulder (2021) 102 Business Strategy and the Environment n.a. 25 25 2 van Zanten and van Tulder (2021) 66 International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology n.a. 25 25 3 van Zanten and van Tulder (2021) 76 Business Strategy and the Environment - 14 14 4 Sinkovics et al (2021) 72 Multinational Business Review n.a. 11 11 5 Gutberlet (2021) 12 World Development Brazil 9 9 6 Pineda-Escobar (2019) 73 Corporate Governance (Bingley) Colombia 25 8.33 7 Fleming et al (2017) 20 Marine Policy Australia 38 7.6 8 Liou and Rao- Nicholson (2021) 58 Journal of International Business Policy n.a. 6 6 9 Blagov and Petrova- Savchenko (2021) 57 Corporate Governance (Bingley) Russia 5 5 10 Dahlmann et al (2019) 97 Anthropocene Review n.a. 15 5 11 Redman (2018) 49 Business Strategy and Development n.a. 15 3.75 12 Arnold (2018) 77 Business Strategy and Development International 13 3.25 13 Fei et al. (2021) 40 Sustainability (Switzerland) International 3 3 14 Malay and Aubinet (2021) 86 Ecological Economics Belgium 2 2 15 Buczacki et al (2021) 37 Sustainability (Switzerland) n.a. 2 2 16 Lisowski et al (2020) 67 Sustainability (Switzerland) International 3 1.5 17 Macellari et al (2018) 58 Business Strategy and Development Italy 5 1.25 18 Khalique et al (2021) 6 Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal India 1 1 19 Fagerlin et al (2019) 44 Sustainability (Switzerland) Japan 1 0.33 20 Rygh et al (2021) 106 Critical Perspectives on International Business n.a. 0 0 21 Javeed et al. (2021) 99 Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development Pakistan 0 0 26 22 Matteucci (2020) 13 Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes international 0 0 RO: ranking order; NIY: normalized citations pero year; Source: Scopus. - Cluster 6 (colored light blue)—Performance, business model, and SDG measurement: Nineteen papers that analyzed the relationship between performance and business model with SDGs in addition to articles dealing with SDG measurement make up this cluster. The articles with the highest number of links were those by Ejarque and Campos (2020), Cordova and Celone (2019), and Nechita et al. (2020). With regards to the articles’ impact, the paper with the highest number of citations, both in absolute and in relative terms, was that by Mina et al. (2021). The following papers with a higher academic impact were those by Lassala et al. (2021) and Núñez et al. (2020). Conversely, the paper with the lowest number of citations was that by Kandler Rodríguez (2020), with no citations. Almost all of the articles belonging to this cluster were written by multiple authors (18 papers), whereas there was only 1 paper written by a single author. The authors with a higher number of publications were Mansell, P., and Philbin, S.P., with three papers each, followed by Mozas-Moral, A., Bernal-Jurado, E., Fernández-Uclés, D., and Medina-Viruel, M.J., with two papers each. Within this subtopic, the journal with more papers published was Sustainability. The first published article of this cluster dated from 2019, and the year with more publications was 2020, with 11 papers, and 2021, with 8 papers. Moreover, Spain was the most analyzed country in this cluster. Table 9 shows the papers belonging to this cluster, their journal, the number of links between papers, the country or region of study, and their impact or influence measured by the total number of citations and the average number of citations per year from the date of publication (NIY) (Castelló-Sirvent, 2022). It should be noted that the last column reflects the “acceleration” of the impact in time weighting. Thus, under equal conditions of the date of publication, the greater the NIY, the greater the academic interest in the paper. Table 9. Cluster 6 RO Author Links Journal Country Citations NIY 1 Mina et al (2021) 3 Journal of Cleaner Production - 33 33 2 Lassala et al (2021) 67 Economic Research- Ekonomska Istrazivanja Spain 13 13 3 Núñez et al (2020) 4 Sustainability (Switzerland) Spain 14 7 4 Cordova and Celone (2019) 89 Sustainability (Switzerland) na 15 5 5 Mozas-Moral et al (2020) 4 Sustainability (Switzerland) Spain 8 4 6 Mozas-Moral et al (2021) 10 Technological Forecasting and Social Change Spain 3 3 7 Raiden and King (2021) 7 Resources, Conservation and Recycling England 3 3 8 Zhou and Etzkowitz (2021) 3 Sustainability (Switzerland) n.a. 3 3 9 Nechita et al (2020) 84 Sustainability (Switzerland) East Europe 6 3 10 Mansell et al (2020) 43 Sustainability (Switzerland) United Kingdom 6 3 27 11 Mansell et al (2020) 25 Sustainability (Switzerland) United Kingdom 5 2.5 12 Mansell and Philbin (2020) 43 Journal of Modern Project Management n.a. 4 2 13 Jiménez et al (2020) 67 Sustainability (Switzerland) Spain 3 1.5 14 Gambetta et al (2021) 72 Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues - 1 1 15 Jiménez et al (2021) 23 Sustainability (Switzerland) Spain 1 1 16 de la Casa and Caballero (2021) 4 CIRIEC-Espana Revista de Economia Publica, Social y Cooperativa Spain 1 1 17 Ejarque and Campos (2020) 101 Sustainability (Switzerland) Europe 2 1 18 Ionaşcu et al (2020) 66 Sustainability (Switzerland) n.a. 2 1 19 Kandler Rodríguez (2020) 9 Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes Costa Rica 0 0 Ro: Ranking Order; NIY: normalized citations per year; Source: Scopus. - Cluster 7 (colored orange)— SDG reporting. Its use with legitimation purpose: Nineteen papers that analyzed the SDG reporting as a legitimation purpose make up this cluster. As mentioned above, the articles belonging to this subtopic had a closer link to those that formed clusters 3 and 8. The articles with the highest number of links were those by Elalfy et al. (2020), Elalfy et al. (2020), Calabrese et al. (2021), and van der Waal et al. (2021). With regards to the articles’ impact, the paper with the highest number of citations in relative terms was that by van der Waal et al. (2021), whereas the paper with more total citations was that by Ike et al. (2019). Conversely, there were two papers with no citations: Caldana et al. (2021), and Galleli et al. (2021). Almost all of the articles belonging to this cluster were written by multiple authors (18 papers), while there was only 1 publication by a single author. The authors with a higher number of publications were ElAlfy, A., Khare, A., Krüger, C., LourenÇao, M., Pennabel, A.F., and Webber, O., with two papers each. Within this subtopic, the journals with more papers published were the Journal of Cleaner Production and Sustainability, with three papers each, followed by Business Strategy and the Environment (two papers). The first published article of this cluster dated from 2018, and the year with more publications was 2021, with twelve papers published during that year. Table 10 shows the papers belonging to this cluster, their journal, the number of links between papers, the country or region of study, and their impact or influence measured by the total number of citations and the average number of citations per year from the date of publication (NIY) (Castelló-Sirvent, 2022). It should be noted that the last column reflects the “acceleration” of the impact in time weighting. Thus, under equal conditions of the date of publication, the greater the NIY, the greater the academic interest in the paper. Table 10. Cluster 7 RO Author Links Journal Country Citations NIY 1 van der Waal et al (2021) 101 Journal of Cleaner Production International 25 25 2 Johnsson et al. (2020) 67 Renewable and Sustainable Energy n.a. 32 16 28 Reviews 3 Khan et al (2021) 20 Business Strategy and the Environment n.a. 15 15 4 Ordonez-Ponce et Khare (2021) 100 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management - 14 14 5 Ike et al.(2019) 66 Journal of Cleaner Production Japan 41 13.67 6 Jan et al. (2021) 21 Sustainability (Switzerland) Islamic countries 8 8 7 ElAlfy et al. (2020) 109 Sustainable Development International 14 7 8 Calabrese et al. (2021) 108 Journal of Cleaner Production - 6 6 9 Szennay et al. (2019) 67 Resources n.a. 18 6 10 Warmate et al. (2021) 11 Business Strategy and the Environment International 5 5 11 Russell et al. (2018) 11 Sustainability (Switzerland) United Kingdom 20 5 12 Gerged and Almontaser (2021) 54 Resources Policy Libya 3 3 13 Diaz-Sarachaga (2021) 100 Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management Spain 2 2 14 Lourenção et al. (2021) 35 World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development - 2 2 15 Lee and Kim (2021) 14 Social Indicators Research International 2 2 16 Elalfy et al. (2020) 121 Journal of Applied Accounting Research - 4 2 17 Vogel-Pöschl et al (2020) 51 Zeitschrift fur Evaluation - 2 1 18 Caldana et al. (2021) 35 Benchmarking Brazil 0 0 19 Galleli et al. (2021) 34 Sustainability (Switzerland) Brazil 0 0 RO: Ranking order; NIY: normalized citations per year; Source: Scopus. -- Cluster 8 (colored brown)—SDG reporting. Nature and orientation: Eleven papers that analyzed that analyze the nature and orientation of SDG reporting by companies make up this cluster. These articles are connected with those belonging to clusters 3 and 7. The articles with the highest number of links were those by Pzzi et al. (2020) and Izzo et al. (2020). With regards to the articles’ impact, the paper with the highest number of citations, both in absolute and in relative terms, was that by Rosati and Faria (2019). The following papers with a higher academic impact were those by Pizzi et al. (2021) and de Villiers et al. (2021). Conversely, there were two papers with no citations. All of the articles belonging to this cluster were written by multiple authors. The author with the highest number of publications was Mukherjee, M., with two papers. Within this subtopic, the journal with more papers published was Sustainability (three papers), followed by the Journal of Cleaner Production (two papers). The first published article of this cluster dated from 2019, and the year with more publications was 2021, with seven papers published during that year. 29 Table 11 shows the papers belonging to this cluster, their journal, the number of links between papers, the country or region of study, and their impact or influence measured by the total number of citations and the average number of citations per year from the date of publication (NIY) (Castelló-Sirvent, 2022). It should be noted that the last column reflects the “acceleration” of the impact in time weighting. Thus, under equal conditions of the date of publication, the greater the NIY, the greater the academic interest in the paper. Table 11. Cluster 8 RO Author TL Journal Country Citations NIY 1 Rosati and Faria (2019) 96 Journal of Cleaner Production International 161 53.67 2 Pizzi et al (2020) 118 Journal of Cleaner Production n.a. 73 36.5 3 de Villiers et al (2021) 65 Journal of Business Research n.a. 20 20 4 Izzo et al. (2020) 115 Sustainability (Switzerland) Italy 27 13.5 5 Di Vaio et al. (2021) 36 Maritime Policy and Management n.a. 6 6 6 Ghosh and Rajan (2019) 9 International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology International 16 5.33 7 Gambetta et al. (2021) 43 Sustainability (Switzerland) Spain 5 5 8 Mukherjee and Wood (2021) 10 Sustainability (Switzerland) Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines 2 2 9 Franco- Riquelme and Rubalcaba (2021) 30 Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity Spain 1 1 10 Nguyen and Ngo (2021) 39 Economic Research- Ekonomska Istrazivanja Vietnam 0 0 11 Boffa and Maffei (2021) 7 FME Transactions n.a. 0 0 RO: ranking order; NIY: normalized citations per year; Source: Scopus. - Cluster 9 (colored pink)— SDGs and business strategies: Six papers that analyzed SDGs and their relationship with business strategies, analyzing which strategies facilitate SDGs’ implementation, make up this cluster. The articles with the highest number of links were those by Mio et al. (2020). With regards to the articles’ impact, the paper with the highest number of citations, both in absolute and in relative terms, was that by Mio et al. (2020). The following paper with a higher academic impact was that by El-Haddadeh et al. (2021). Conversely, the paper with the lower number of citations was that by van den Broek (2020). All the articles belonging to this cluster were written by multiple authors except for one, and all the authors had one published article about this subtopic. Within this subtopic, the journal with more papers published was Sustainability (two papers), while the other journals had one article 30 each. The first published article of this cluster dated from 2019, and the year with more publications was 2021, with three papers published during that year. Moreover, European countries were the most analyzed. Table 12 shows the papers belonging to this cluster, their journal, the number of links between papers, the country or region of study, and their impact or influence measured by the total number of citations and the average number of citations per year from the date of publication (NIY) (Castelló-Sirvent, 2022). It should be noted that the last column reflects the “acceleration” of the impact in time weighting. Thus, under equal conditions of the date of publication, the greater the NIY, the greater the academic interest in the paper. Table 12. Cluster 9 RO Author Links Journal Country Citations NIY 1 Mio et al. (2020) 121 Business Strategy and the Environment n.a. 55 27.5 2 El-Haddadeh et al. (2021) 3 Journal of Business Research United Kingdom 15 15 3 Shereni (2019) 1 African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure sub-saharan African countries 7 2.33 4 Jimenez et al. (2021) 50 Sustainability (Switzerland) n.a 2 2 5 Camodeca and Almici (2021) 20 Sustainability (Switzerland) Italy 2 2 6 van den Broek (2020) 63 Corporate Communications French 2 1 Ro: Ranking Order; NIY: normalized citations per year; Source: Scopus. Moreover, we conducted a co-occurrence analysis, which is based on the idea that “the relatedness of items is determined based on the number of documents in which they occur together” (vosViewer database). In this case, the unit of analysis is the keywords (considering all keywords). We established a minimum number of occurrences of a keyword (5) and, from the 1.148 keywords of our sample, 59 met these conditions. Figure 9 shows the results of the co-occurrence analysis. The most used keywords were: sustainable development (total link strength: 380), sustainable development goal (total link strength: 353), sustainable development goals (total link strength: 269), and sustainability (total link strength: 239). It is remarkable that “private sector” was only repeated 15 times and “business” 17, when they constitute the other fundamental point of the articles that we are analyzing. This suggests that the most specific keywords are not really being used to classify the papers, since it seems necessary to use some reference to the private sector as a keyword to differentiate the works that analyze the business sector from those that deal with the public sector or NGOs. 31 Figure 9. Keywords Source: vosViewer and Scopus. In our final sample, we found 5.975 cited sources, of which only 22 journals received more than 40 citations. Table 13 shows the ten journals that received the highest number of citations, as well as the number of citations per year. These numbers clearly reflect the importance of the Journal of Cleaner Production in the discussion of the role of companies in meeting the SDGs. Table 13. Number of citations per journal Journal Citations NIY Journal of Cleaner Production 700 116.67 Journal of Business Ethics 526 87.67 Sustainability 366 61 Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 272 45.33 Business Strategy and the environment 155 25.83 Sustainable Development 131 21.83 Academy of Management Review 75 12.5 Nature 57 9.5 Strategic Management Journal 51 8.5 Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 49 8.17 NIY: normalized citations per year; Source: vosViewer and Scopus. On the other hand, we found 17.826 cited authors, of which only 21 had been cited more than 40 times. Table 14 shows the ten authors who were cited more than 60 times, as well as the number of citations per year. Table 14. Number of citations per author Authors Citations NIY Rosati, F. 93 15.5 Kolk, A. 81 13.5 Van Tulder, R. 72 12 Griggs, D. 68 11.33 García-Sánchez, I.M 66 11 Scheyvens, R. 64 10.67 Rockstrom, J. 61 10.17 32 Bebbington, J. 60 10 Schaltegger, S. 59 9.83 Unerman, J. 59 9.83 NIY: normalized citations per year ; Source: vosViewer and Scopus. Finally, from the 13.967 cited references, only two had been cited more than 10 times (Table 15). This makes sense because, as we stated, this is a very current research topic, so the two most cited articles are among the oldest. Table 15. Most cited references Reference Citations NIY Sullivan, K., Thomas, S., & Rosano, M. (2018). Using industrial ecology and strategic management concepts to pursue the Sustainable Development Goals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 174, 237-246. 13 4.33 Scheyvens, R., Banks, G., & Hughes, E. (2016). The private sector and the SDGs: The need to move beyond ‘business as usual’. Sustainable Development, 24(6), 371- 382. 10 2 NIY: normalized citations per year ; Source: vosViewer and Scopus. 1.5. DISCUSSION 1.5.1. Main characteristics of the papers In this section, we summarize the main characteristics of the papers under study. In addition to the issues analyzed so far, is interesting to expose the theories on which they have been based, the SDGs that they analyze, or the characteristics of the sample. It is interesting to analyze this information jointly, since issues are observed that provide relevant data regarding the status of existing research on the role that companies play in the development of the SDGs. Much of the work obtained in this bibliographic review resorted to the theories that have been commonly used in CSR research to reinforce their work, as can be seen in Table 16. Moreover, the papers that used a theoretical framework mainly did so individually, although there were some works that combined several of these theories. Other papers based their research on the theoretical framework of the SDGs, but were not based on specific theories (e.g., Ghosh & Rajan, 2019; de Villiers et al., 2021). It should be noted that, in the first cluster the most used theories were the stakeholder theory and the institutional theory. Without a doubt, the third cluster was the one that showed the greatest variety of theories, and it was also the cluster that presented a greater number of studies that based their framework on an existing theory. Table 16. Theories used in the paper analyzed Theory Papers Activity theory Saz-Gil et al. (2020) Agency theory Gambetta et al. (2021); Khaled et al. (2021); García-Meca and Martínez-Ferreiro (2021); García-Sánchez et al. (2019); Kazemikhasragh et al. (2021); Lassala et al. (2021); Continuity theory Saz-Gil et al. (2020) Grounded theory Jan et al. (2021) Impression management theory García-Sánchez et al. (2020) Institutional theory Rosati and Faria (2019); Gerged and Almontaser (2021); Galleli et al. (2021); van Zanten and van Tulder (2018); García-Sánchez et al. (2020); Hepner et al. (2021); Erin and Bamigboye (2021); Izzo et al. (2020); García-Sánchez et al. (2019); Ordonez-Ponce and Khare (2021) Legitimacy theory Gambetta et al. (2021); Rosati and Faria(2019); García-Sánchez et al. (2020) Yu et al. (2020); Curtó-Pagès et al. (2021); García-Meca and Martínez-Ferreiro (2021); Izzo et al. (2020); Kazemikhasragh et al. (2021); De Luca et al. (2020); Yu 33 and Kuo. (2021); Lassala et al. (2021); Khan et al. (2021); ElAlfy et al. (2020) Natural resource based view Ilyas et al. (2020) Organizational identity theory Liou and Rao- Nicholson (2021) Paradox theory Vildåsen (2018) Resource-based view Ordonez-Ponce et al. (2021) Signaling theory Rosati and Faria(2019); Diaz-Sarachaga (2021); Khan et al. (2021) Social and environmental justice theory Gutberlet (2021) Stakeholder theory Gambetta et al. (2021); Rosati and Faria(2019); Diaz-Sarachaga (2021); Jonsdottir et al. (2021); Gunawan et al. (2020); Lopez (2020); García-Sánchez et al. (2019); Gallego-Sosa et al. (2021); Erin and Bamigboye (2021); Nishitani et al. (2021); Jun and Kim (2021); Modgil et al. (2020); Phan et al. (2020); Gallardo- Vázquez et al. (2021); Lassala et al. (2021); Jimenez et al. (2021) Temporality theory van den Broek (2020) Theory of resource dependence Gallego-Sosa et al. (2021) Upper Echelons theory Gallego-Sosa et al. (2021); Ilyas et al. (2020) Value theory Olofsson and Mark-Herbert (2020) Voluntary disclosure theory Izzo et al. (2020) On the other hand, a sign that the research on the subject is recent is that it can be seen that most of the studies approach the analysis from a generic point of view, focusing on the SDGs as a global concept. There is still not much specialized research on each of the SDGs. However, as shown in Table 17, some studies have conducted an analysis on a particular objective. Among these articles, we observed that the objective that received the most attention was 12 (Responsible consumption and production), followed by SDGs 8, 9, and 17. The only SDGs that had not been specifically analyzed were 2 and 16. The clusters that presented the most specialized studies on a specific SDG were 1, 5, and 6. In each of them, the most analyzed SDGs were also 12, 8, and 9 Table 17. Most cited references SDG Publications 1 Scheyvens and Hughes (2019); Gutberlet (2021) 2 - 3 Hepner et al. (2021); Consolandi et al. (2020) 4 Bello and Othman (2020); Mozas-Moral et al. (2020); Mozas-Moral et al. (2021) 5 Hepner et al. (2021); Gutberlet (2021); Núñez et al. (2020) 6 Hepner et al. (2021) 7 Hepner et al. (2021); Modgil et al. (2020) 8 Hepner et al. (2021); Modgil et al. (2020); Gutberlet (2021); Khalique et al. (2021); Matteucci (2020); Núñez et al. (2020); Mozas-Moral et al. (2020); Mozas-Moral et al.. (2021) 9 Hepner et al. (2021);Vildåsen (2018); Modgil et al. (2020); Nobrega et al. (2021); Mozas-Moral et al. (2020); Mozas-Moral et al. (2021) 10 Núñez et al. (2020) 11 Di Vaio and Varriale (2020); Modgil et al. (2020); Gutberlet (2021) 12 Palakshappa and Dodds (2021); Hepner et al. (2021); Vildåsen (2018); Modgil et al. (2020); Gutberlet (2021); Matteucci (2020); Mozas-Moral et al. (2020); Mozas-Moral et al. (2021); Russell et al. (2018) 13 Mozas-Moral et al. (2020); Mozas-Moral et al. (2021) 14 Vildåsen (2018) 15 Hepner et al. (2021); Mozas-Moral et al. (2020); Mozas-Moral et al. (2021) 16 - 17 Hepner et al. (2021); Vildåsen (2018); Di Vaio and Varriale (2020); Matteucci (2020); Mozas-Moral et al. (2021) 40 particular form of identification affecting employees’ self-concept, which will be intrinsically linked to their company (De Roeck & Maon, 2018). Given that the group’s prestige and the distinctiveness of its values favor identification (Ashforth & Mael, 1989), employees will tend to identify with publicly reputable companies, as it satisfies their innate need for self-enhancement (Farooq et al., 2014; Shen et al., 2018). CSR activities positively affect a company’s image and external reputation (Brammer et al., 2007), generating a feeling of pride among its employees and, consequently, enhancing their identification with the organization (Lee & Chen, 2018). In this respect, some studies (Carmeli et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2010) have analyzed the effect of employees’ perception of CSR on their OI, most of them documenting a positive effect. H2.1: Perceived CSR is positively related to employees’ organizational identification. 2.2.2.2. Organizational commitment OC is “the relative strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization” (Mowday et al., 1979, p. 226). It affects the relationship between an employee and her/his employing organization as well as her/his decision to belong to such an organization (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Prior studies (Peterson, 2004; Brammer et al., 2007) document a positive effect of perceived CSR on employees’ affective OC, explaining this effect as employees tend to identify themselves with the positive values underlying in CSR, which enhances their self-image promoting an emotional attachment to the firm (Brammer et al., 2007; Azim, 2016). H2.2: Perceived CSR is positively related to employees’ organizational commitment. 2.2.2.3. Turnover intentions Perceived CSR not only encourages employees’ positive work-related attitudes but also discourages negative ones (Wang et al., 2020). TI refer to employees’ psychological willingess to consciously and deliberately leave the firm, either due to dissatisfaction with the company or better opportunites somewhere else (Hansen et al., 2011; Lin & Liu, 2017). Given that TI influence employees’ current behavior (Wang et al., 2020), it may affect work environment (Lin & Liu, 2017) and suppose a high cost for firms (Griffeth et al., 2000). We focus our study in TI rather than actual turnover because “turnover intention is the best predictor of actual turnover behavior” (Lin & Liu, 2017, p. 1), which means that for companies is interesting to know if their employees have turnover intentions to try to reverse this situation. A few studies have empirically analyzed the effect of perceived CSR on TI, documenting a negative association (Wang et al., 2020). This result can be attributed to the fact that perceived CSR enhances the organization’s attractiveness and employees’ satisfaction (Brammer et al., 2007; Farooq et al., 2014), thus enhancing their desire to belong to such an organization and continue working there (Lee & Chen, 2018). H2.3: Perceived CSR is negatively related to employees’ turnover intentions. 2.2.2.4. Moderating effect of contextual factors and employees’ demographic features Several authors have stressed that employees’ attitude toward CSR affects the impact of CSR on work-related attitudes so that the effect of CSR activities on OI, OC, and TI will vary depending on employees’ sensibility toward CSR, even becoming negative in some cases (Peterson, 2004; Turker, 2009). In turn, employees’ sensibility toward CSR and, consequently, their reactions to their firm’s CSR initiatives are influenced by contextual factors as well as employees’ demographic features (Farooq et al., 2014; Donia et al., 2019). Therefore, both types of factors may 41 moderate the effect of CSR perception on employees’ work-related attitudes (De Roeck & Maon, 2018). 2.2.2.4.1. Level of development of the country Employees’ and companies’ attitudes toward CSR are affected by their country’s economic, social, and political conditions (Baughn et al., 2007). Based on a study of 15 countries, Welford (2005) showed that there is a positive relationship between a country’s economic development and CSR, which explains variance in the level of CSR engagement among countries. Economic development also positively affects employees’ demands for corporate responsibility, which tend to be greater when the level of wealth in a country is higher (Baughn et al., 2007). Clearly, those employees who live in underdeveloped countries have other priorities and needs before CSR, while first world employees are more likely to show more interest in CSR activities since they have their basic needs covered (Razzaq et al., 2020). Therefore, the effect of employees’ perception of CSR on their work-related attitudes can be affected by the level of social and economic development of the country where a company operates. H2.4: The company’s country development level moderates the relationship between perceived CSR and employees’ work-related attitudes, so that the effect of perceived CSR on OI (H2.4a), OC (H2.4b), and TI (H2.4c) will be stronger in countries with higher levels of social and economic development. 2.2.2.4.2. Industry pollution level Prior literature documents a relationship between industry pollution level and CSR (Banerjee et al., 2003; Jenkins & Obara, 2006). Controversial industries (i.e., those considered ‘dirty’ or ‘sin’, such as petro-chemical, oil, and tobacco) are a cause for higher public concern related to their environmental and social impacts and, consequently, they tend to engage in CSR activities (Monteiro & Aibar‐Guzmán, 2010). As a result, increased engagement with CSR by firms belonging to controversial industries might be perceived as unethical (Hill, 2001), and produce the opposite effect, negatively affecting corporate reputation. In this regard, De Roeck & Maon (2018) contend that the pollution level of the industry to which a company belongs may affect how its employees perceive and respond to CSR. Thus, belonging to controversial industries might decrease the effect of CSR activities on employees’ work-related attitudes, as employees might perceive them as distrustful. Several studies on controversial industries (e.g., Dutton et al., 1990; De Roeck & Delobbe, 2012) support this view. H2.5: The company’s industry pollution level moderates the relationship between perceived CSR and employees’s work-related attitudes, so that the effect of perceived CSR on OI (H2.5a), OC (H2.5b), and TI (H2.5c) will be stronger when the firm belongs to noncontroversial industries. 2.2.2.4.3. National culture National culture refers to the values that characterize a country’s culture. It provides a “collective programming of the mind” (Hofstede, 1984, p. 389) that affects individuals’ attitudes and behaviors (Lee et al., 2015). It affects how societies approach CSR (Waldman et al., 2006), influencing not only employees’ sensibility toward environmental and social issues but also the extent to which they consider that firms have ethical responsibilities and value their CSR efforts (McNamara et al., 2017). Therefore, national culture can play a moderating role in 42 the relationship between perceived CSR and employees’ work-related attitudes (Mueller et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2020). The most widely cited taxonomy for the study of national culture is the one developed by Hofstede (1980, 2001), which defines national culture through five dimensions: individualism/collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, power distance, masculinity/femininity, and time orientation. The first dimension (individualism) reflects whether a society places emphasis on individual goals versus collective ones. Prior research found a positive assotiation between collectivistic cultures and CSR (Esteban et al., 2017). To the extent that in collectivistic cultures people care for the welfare of others, employees will positively value their company’s CSR efforts (Kim et al., 2010), leading to higher levels of OI and OC and reducing TI (De Roeck & Maon, 2018). H2.6: The individualism level of the country’s national culture moderates the relationship between perceived CSR and employees’ work-related attitudes, so that the effect of perceived CSR on OI (H2.6a), OC (H2.6b), and TI (H2.6c) will be stronger in collectivistic cultures. Uncertainty avoidance refers to the extent to which individuals feel threatened or are uncomfortable in ambiguous and uncertain situations (Hofstede, 1980). As Rallapalli et al. (1994) noted, risk taking behavior is related to unethical actions and, accordingly, CSR engaged societies tend to avoid this kind of risks (Kacperczyk, 2009), a positive relationship existing between uncertainty avoidance and CSR (Kang et al., 2016; Ho et al., 2021). Thus, in cultural contexts characterized by high uncertainty avoidance employees will value their companies’ CSR initiatives H2.7: The uncertainty avoidance level of the country’s national culture moderates the relationship between perceived CSR and employees’ work-related attitudes, so that the effect of perceived CSR on OI (H2.7a), OC (H2.7b), and TI (H2.7c) will be stronger in cultures characterized by high uncertainty avoidance. Masculine values are associated with a focus on recognition and material success, whereas femininity refers to the preference for relationships, quality of life, caring, and altruism. Therefore, individuals in feminine countries will exhibit higher sensitivity towards CSR (Esteban et al., 2017) and, consequently, it can be expected that the effect of CSR perception on their work-related attitudes is affected by this dimension of national culture. H2.8: The feminity level of the country’s national culture moderates the relationship between perceived CSR and employees’ work-related attitudes, so that the effect of perceived CSR on OI (H2.8a), OC (H2.8b), and TI (H2.8c) will be stronger in feminine cultures Time orientation reflects whether a society prioritizes long term over short term (Hofstede, 2001). Short-term-oriented cultures place emphasis on immediate benefits rather than look for longterm value creation, which leads individuals and companies to prioritize short-term gains at the expense of long-term strategies such as those related to CSR. Accordingly, it can be expected that the effect of CSR perception on employees’ work-related attitudes is affected by the country’s time orientation. H2.9: The time orientation of the country’s national culture moderates the relationship between perceived CSR and employees’ work-related attitudes, so that the effect of perceived CSR on OI (H2.9a), OC (H2.9b), and TI (H2.9c) will be stronger in countries characterized by a long-term orientation. 2.2.2.4.4. Employees’ demographic features 43 Besides contextual factors, employees’ demographic features and personal traits also affect their sensibility toward CSR (i.e., how they respond to their organization’s CSR activities) and, consequently, they may moderate the impact that CSR activities have on work-related attitudes. Thus, in the case of socially and environmentally concerned individuals, a favorable perception of their firms CSR activities may lead to stronger OI and OC and, conversely, reduce TI (Shahzadi et al., 2019). Gender differences affect individuals’ perceptions of CSR (Panwar et al., 2010). Several authors have showed that women tend to be more concerned with environmental and social issues whereas men tend to be more focused on economic ones (Davidson & Freudenburg, 1996; Monteiro et al., 2021). Consequently, female employees will react positively to their firms’ CSR activities (Roberts, 1991) and perceived CSR will have a stronger impact on their work-related attitudes (Peterson, 2004). H2.10: Employees’ gender moderates the relationship between perceived CSR and employees’ work-related attitudes, so that the effect of perceived CSR on OI (H2.10a), OC (H2.10b), and TI (H2.10c) will be stronger in the case of female employees. Employees’ age also influences their sensibility toward CSR (Wang et al., 2020). Although those individuals who were born from the eighties (i.e., Y generation or Millenials) tend to show a higher concern toward social and environmental issues (Klimkiewicz & Oltra, 2017), as noted by Wang et al. (2020), employees tend to put more emphasis on meaningful goals (such as social and environmental protection) as their age increases. Accordingly, it can be expected that the impact of perceived CSR on work-related attitudes is stronger as employees’age increases. H2.11: Employees’ age moderates the relationship between perceived CSR and employees’ work-related attitudes, so that the effect of perceived CSR on OI (H2.11a), OC (H2.11b), and TI (H2.11c) will be stronger in the case of older employees. The time span that an employee has spent with a specific company (often referred as tenure) also affects how employees perceive their company’s CSR efforts, as they can judge and value them based on their work experience. Therefore, we expect that employees’ tenure affects the impact of perceived CSR on their work-related attitudes. H2.12: Employees’ tenure moderates the relationship between perceived CSR and employees’ work-related attitudes. so that the effect of perceived CSR on OI (H2.12a), OC (H2.12b), and TI (H2.12c) will be stronger as tenure increases. Employees’ educational level, i.e., “the formal qualification in the form of degrees individuals receive from college or university” (Shahzadi et al., 2019, p. 1242), affects both individuals’ thought processes and their preferences and goals (Piper et al., 2012). Education affects employees’ ability to understand others’ demands (Ng & Feldman, 2009), so that, as their educational level increases, employees tend to value altruistic and social rewards (Rose, 2005) and show higher concern for social and environmental problems (Sun et al., 2020). Several authors found that employees’ educational level is positively related to CSR (Farooq et al., 2014; Sun et al., 2020). Consequently, we expect a stronger effect of CSR perception on work-related attitudes in the case of employees with higher qualifications. H2.13: Employees’ educational level moderates the relationship between perceived CSR and employees’ work-related attitudes. so that the effect of perceived CSR on OI (H2.13a), OC (H2.13b), and TI (H2.13c) will be stronger as employees’ educational level increases. Finally, the position that an employee occupies in the company may also affect her/his sensibility toward CSR. Kucharska & Kowalczyk (2019) found that the higher the employees’ 44 position in a company is, the more positively they perceive its CSR efforts, because top management shares the firm’s viewpoint. Therefore, we expect a stronger effect of CSR perception on work-related attitudes in the case of employees in higher positions. H2.14: Employees’ position moderates the relationship between perceived CSR and employees’ work-related attitudes, so that the effect of perceived CSR on OI (H2.14a), OC (H2.14b), and TI (H2.14c) will be stronger in the case of high-position employees. Figure 10 summarizes the research model. Figure 10. Research model 2.3. METHODOLOGY A meta-analysis jointly analyzes the results of different observations that examine the behavior of the same variables, with the aim of providing a common response to the hypotheses raised (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004; Byron & Post, 2016). 2.3.1 Data collection 45 The first step to construct the data set was to carry out a systematic review to search relevant studies on the subject. Two different search tasks were performed. We firstly made an initial search with the aim of finding the main journals that publish articles on the subject. We specifically looked for articles that study the relationship between CSR activities and employees’ work-related attitudes published between January 1999 and December 2019 in peer-reviewed journals indexed on the Web of Science and Scopus databases by using the following keywords: “CSR” or “corporate social responsibility”, and “turnover”, “commitment”, "affective commitment”, and “organizational identification”. Then, a second search was carried out by performing a comprehensive review focused on the journals that had published some papers on the subject identified in the first search. This search returned 209 publications. The second step consisted in the reading and critical analysis of the initial sample of 209 papers. Each of the authors separately read and analyzed the papers summarizing their main characteristics and subsequently the results were compared. The following criteria for inclusion of papers were used (Paruzel et al., 2021): Articles should consist in empirical studies and provide statistical data. Therefore, theoretical articles, bibliographic reviews and meta-analyses were excluded. The selected sample must be made up of employees. Therefore, studies carried out with students were removed. The dependent variables should be OI, OC or TI, while the independent variable should be employees’ CSR perception. The studies ought to provide the correlation coefficients between perceived CSR and the dependent variables. Repeated articles were eliminated. As a result of these filters, a final sample of 42 papers was obtained. Figure 11 depicts the process followed to construct the data set and Table 18 shows the final sample of articles and the dependent variable of each of them. Figure 11. Article selection process Table 18. Final sample of articles according to their dependent variable Commitment Organizational identification Azim (2016) Brammer et al. (2015) Articles selected through journal search Total: 209 articles Articles deleted: theoretical, bibliographic review and meta-analysis (41) Total: 168 Articles deleted: those that use different sample (5) Total: 163 Articles deleted: those that use different variables (118) Total: 45 Articles deleted: duplicated (3) Final sample: 42 articles 46 Bouraoui et al. (2019) Brammer et al. (2007) Bravo et al. (2017) Closon et al. (2015) D’Aprile and Talò (2015) Ditlev-Simonsen (2015) Fu et al. (2014) Glavas and Kelley (2014) Gupta (2017) Hofman and Newman (2014) Islam et al. (2016) Khaleel et al. (2017) Kim et al. (2016) Kim et al. (2017) Kowalczyk and Kucharska (2020) Kundu et Gahlawat (2016) Mory et al. (2016) Mueller et al. (2012) Oh et al. (2019) Turker (2009) Valentine and Godkin (2017) Vlachos et al. (2014) Youn et al. (2018) Zafar and Ali (2016) Zhou et al. (2018) Zientara et al. (2015) Brieger et al. (2020) Carmeli et al. (2007) De Roeck and Delobbe (2012) De Roeck et al. (2016) Farooq et al. (2014) Gupta (2017) Islam et al. (2016) Ko et al. (2018) Shin et al. (2016) Tian et Robertson (2019) Wang et al. (2017) Zafar and Ali (2016) Zhao et al. (2019) Turnover intentions Chaudhary (2017) Hansen et al. (2011) Kim et al. (2016) Lin and Liu (2017) Ng et al. (2019) Valentine and Godkin (2017) Wang et al. (2017) 2.3.2. Data analysis 2.3.2.1. Coding procedures The next step was a coding process, carried out with the objective of minimizing errors. From the final sample of articles, a complex task of data standardization was performed to get a common measure for all variables. The critical issue when measuring the main variables was the lack of uniformity regarding the scales used. Therefore, after analyzing each one, a common criterion was established and the data were standardized (Table 19). The problem that arose when measuring the CSR variable is that there is no common criterion to do it. After reviewing the extant literature, we observe that the authors apply different scales to measure this variable. Moreover, some authors measure the CSR variable in a general way and others focus on some of its subdimensions (environmental, social, etc.). However, after reviewing the articles included in this meta-analysis, we observed that most of the authors refer to practically the same concepts, although they call them differently, therefore we have homogenized this variable by measuring all the results on a Likert scale from 1-5. As regards employees’ demographic features, we considered employees’ average age (age), the sam ple’s proportion of females (gender), and employees’ average tenure (tenure). Employees’ educational level (education) was measured by making a distinction between university and nonuniversity education, and employees’ position (position) was measured distinguishing between managers and employees. Regarding contextual factors, following previous studies (Vollero et al, 2018 Monteiro and Aibar-Guzmán, 2010), industries were classified according to their pollution level in: (1) highpollutant or more controversial (manufacturing, energy sector, food, and agriculture, chemical), (2) low-pollutant or less controversial (casinos, hotels, and health care), (3) no-pollutant or no controversial (banking and finance, information technology, and electronic), and (4) mix (samples that include companies from several types of industries). 47 Similarly, countries were classified according to their economic level, social development, and lifestyles. Thus, we distinguish two broad groups: countries with a high level of social and economic development and countries with a low level of social and economic development. Then, following Graafland & Smid (2019) and Farber & Charles (2013), we also consider the geographical area in which the countries are located according to the following categories: (1) Anglo-Saxon countries outside Europe, (2) Anglo-Saxon countries in Europe, (3) Scandinavian countries, (4) Other western European countries, (5) Mediterranean European countries, (6) Japan, (7) East and Southeast Asian countries, (8) South Asian countries, (9) Middle East and North Africa, and (10) mix (samples that include companies from several countries). Thus, the countries belonging to the first six categories were considered as developed countries, whereas the remaining categories correspond to countries with a low level of social and economic development. This double classification in necessary to capture both the countries’ economic development level and the countries’s social and lifestyle features that can affect employees’ work-related attitudes and their CSR perception (for example, although Spain and Japan can have a comparable level of economic development, the social and lifestyle features of people from both countries are very different). Finally, the variables related to the dimensions of national culture were coded following the data matrix created by Hofstede (https://geert hofstede.com/research-and-vsm/dimension-data- matrix/). Table 19. Variables Variable Acronym Measurement Panel A: Independent variable Perceived CSR Perceived CSR Likert scale from 1-5 Panel B: Dependent variable Organizational identification OI Likert scale from 1-5 Organizational commitment OC Likert scale from 1-7 Turnover intentions TI Likert scale from 1-5 Panel C: Moderators Contextual factors Employees features Level of development of the country Country Two groups: A) High development level: 1. Anglo-Saxon countries outside Europe 2. Anglo-Saxon countries in Europe 3. Scandinavian countries 4. Other western European countries 5. Mediterranean European countries 6. Japan B) Low development level: 7. East and Southeast Asian countries 8. South Asian countries 9. Middle East and North Africa C) Others 10. Mix Industry pollution level Industry Four groups: 1. High pollutant or more controversial 2. Low pollutant or less controversial 3. No pollutant 4. Mix National culture: -Individualism level -Uncertainty avoidance level -Masculinity level -Time orientation Individualism Scale from 0-120 (Hofstede, 2001) Uncertainty avoidance Scale from 0-120 (Hofstede, 2001) Masculinity Scale from 0-120 (Hofstede, 2001) Long term orientation Scale from 0-120 (Hofstede, 2001) 48 Employees’ gender Gender Sample’s proportion of females Employees’ age Age Employees’ average age Employees’ tenure Tenure Employees’ average tenure Employees’ educational level Education Dummy variable: University education Non-university education Employees’position Position Dummy 2.3.2.2. Data analysis procedures The data analysis has been carried out with R (Paruzel et al., 2021). Firstly, the existence of publication bias was checked through the Egger’s Regression Intercept (Egger et al, 1977). Publication bias refers to the fact that the papers with significant findings are more likely to be published than those with non-significant results, which could mean that our final selection of studies is not representative of the studies carried out on this topic (Revelli & Viviani, 2015). If the coefficient is higher than 0.05 means that there are no biases in the meta-analysis. Then, we corrected the measurement error by using correlations (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). Finally, a heterogeneity analysis was carried out to measure the heterogeneity of the samples. Two statistics were computed: Q (Cochran’s Q Test) and I2 (the heterogeneity index). The first assesses whether variability in correlations across studies is statistically significant (i.e., a statistically significant Q-value denotes heterogeneity). The I2 statistic indicates the ratio of total variation in estimates attributable to heterogeneity; when its value exceeds 75%, the sample is regarded as heterogeneous (Greenland & O’Rourke, 2008). The existence of heterogeneity confirms the importance of knowing the role of different moderating variables that can influence the relationship between perceived CSR and work-related attitudes. Regression analysis, multivariate analysis and principal component analysis were used to test the research hypotheses. Following Borenstein et al. (2011), a random effects meta-analysis technique was used to test Hypotheses H2.1, H2.2, and H2.3, whereas a fixed effects meta-regression was used to test the remaining hypotheses. A 95% confidence interval (CI) was considered. 2.4. RESULTS 2.4.1. Publication bias test Table 20 shows the results of the Egger's test for the relationship between CSR perception and the three analyzed work-related attitudes (OI, OC, and TI). In all cases the p value of Egger's regression intercept is higher than the benchmark of 0.5, which indicates that there are no biases in the meta-analysis. Table 20. Results of the Egger's test Hypotheses k N Egger’s intercept H1 14 3955 -0.5080 H2 27 17816 -0.5207 H3 7 5737 0.0817 Note: k = number of articles included in each analysis; N = number of participants in each analysis; Egger’s intercept = the intercept for the linear regression.; p = p-value for Egger's intercept. 2.4.2. Main results 2.4.2.1. The effect of perceived CSR on employees’ work-related attitudes 49 Table 21 reports the results of the relationships between perceived CSR and the three analyzed work-realted attitudes (OI, OC, and TI). As can be seen, perceived CSR is positively correlated with OI (rc = 0.46) and OC (rc = 0.49) and negatively correlated with TI (rc = -0.22). In all cases, the 95% IC does not include 0. Accordingly, Hypotheses H2.1, H2.2, and H2.3 are supported. Overall, our findings show that perceived CSR has a positive effect on employees, strengthening positive attitudes and diminishing negative ones. These results are consistent with the findings obtained in other meta-analyses carried out by Wang et al. (2020) and Paruzel et al. (2021). Table 21. Results for direct relations 95% CI Relationship k N rc LL UL Z Q PQ I2 OI 14 3955 0.46 0.4080 0.5813 11.186 97.7960 <.0001 86.44 OC 24 17816 0.49 0.4406 0.6416 10.5512 650.1254 <.0001 96.85 TI 10 5737 -0.22 -0.3161 -0.1410 -5.1163 64.2978 <.0001 87.47 Relationship k N rc LL UL Z Q PQ I2 Note: k = number of atticles included in each analysis; N = number of participants in each analysis; rc = correlations coefficients; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval for rc; LL = lower level of the CI; UL = upper level of the CI; Z = Z-statistic; Q = Q-statistic; pQ = p value for the Q-statistic; I2 = I2 statistic 2.4.2.2. Moderating effect of contextual factors Table 22 reports the results of the moderating effect of contextual factors on the relationship between perceived CSR and employees’ work-related attitudes (Hypotheses 2.4-2.9). Table 22. Restuls of moderating effects (contextual factors) Variable OI OC TI Country k 12 23 10 Q 19 7.6669 1.6198 p 0.0010 0.4667 0.4449 Industry k 12 22 10 Q 16 3.7026 19.2796 p 0.0003 0.2954 0.0002 Individualism k 12 23 10 Q 0.1751 1 1.2891 p 0.6756 0.2207 0.2562 β 0.4781 0.4260 -0.1503 Uncertainty avoidance k 12 23 10 Q 0.0082 0.2834 24.1562 p 0.9277 0.5945 <0.0001 β 0.5005 0.6328 -0.009 Masculinity k 12 23 10 Q 0.0111 0.5758 0.3737 p 0.9160 0.4480 0.5410 β 0.5395 0.3906 -0.5334 Long term orientation k 12 23 10 q 62.875 0.4499 0.0382 P 0.0122 0.5024 0.8451 β 0.2188 0.4749 -0.2484 Note: k = number of samples; Q = Q-statistic; β = regression coefficients; p = p-value 56 compliance with the SDGs. Companies must focus their CSR activities taking into account the SDGs and communicate what actions they carry out in their reports. The CEO is the main person in charge of the organization and, consequently, of its strategies as well as the information that is made available to stakeholders (Li et al., 2018; García-Sánchez & Martínez-Ferrero, 2019; García-Sánchez et al., 2019). In fact, decisions related to sustainability correspond to him/her (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Godos-Díez et al., 2019). Therefore, CEOs have the duty and the power to influence the sustainable policies of companies (Cordeiro & Sarkis, 2008; Arena et al., 2018; Aibar-Guzmán & Frías-Aceituno, 2021). Likewise, CEOs have a key role in promoting corporate transparency in this regard (Li et al., 2018; García-Sánchez et al., 2020b). Considering that decisions related to CSR are subject to managerial discretion (Hambrick & Finkelstein, 1987; Arena et al., 2018; García-Sánchez & Martínez-Ferrero, 2019), CEOs’ demographic characteristics, values, and cognitive styles, by affecting how they perceive the environment, will influence their companies’ CSR strategies and performance (Liao et al., 2019). Therefore, given the relevance that these activities have in the company, there is a need to study the personal characteristics of CEOs to know what consequences they may have on CSR activities (Arena et al., 2018; Javeed & Lefen, 2019; Ji et al., 2019; Khan et al., 2020). Taking this into account, the purpose of this chapter is to analyze how the personal attributes of CEOs influence the level of SDG disclosure. For this, an empirical study has been carried out in which we analyze how different personal attributes of the CEO (gender, age, education, nationality, tenure and narcissism) influence the level of disclosure of the SDGs of the IBEX-35 companies. Although several studies have analyzed the effect of CEO’s attributes on CSR reporting (Lewis et al., 2014; Li et al., 2018; García-Sánchez et al., 2020b), as far as we are aware, there is no study that has analyzed this issue before. Thus, we aim to contribute to academic research by increasing the available literature on this emerging research topic. The rest of the chapter is structured as follows: after this introduction, the next section covers the theoretical framework and the hypotheses development. Section 3 contains the information about the empirical study’s design. In Section 4, the results are presented and, finally, Section 5 summarizes the main conclusions of the study, the implications of the results, and some limitations and potential lines for future research. 3.2. BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT 3.2.1 Theoretical framework Given the importance that behavioral science research has acquired in recent times, it is necessary to take into account that business decisions are biased by the personal characteristics and attributes of those who make decisions. Specifically, it must be taken into account that managers make different decisions based on their personal characteristics, values, and cognitive styles (Bamber et al., 2010 Liao et al., 2019). The literature grants the role of fundamental decision maker to the CEO, who is considered the most influential figure in an organization. As indicated earlier, the adoption of sustainability practices as well as their disclosure are discretional decisions that correspond to the CEO of the company (Wei et al., 2018 García-Sánchez & Martínez-Ferrero, 2019) and, like any decision, they will be biased for the CEO’s personal attributes, values and experiences. After analyzing the existant literature, we confirmed that there are countless articles that talk about the impact that the characteristics of the CEO will have on CSR performance, but the same does not happen if we specify this research in disclosure. After carrying out a literature review 214 researchs, 57 once these works have been reviewed, we observe that only 11 articles study the relationship between personal characteristics of the CEO and the disclosure of CSR (Table 1). From a theoretical perspective, the Upper Echelons Theory (UET), which was born from the hand of Hambrick & Mason (1984), argues that the personal characteristics of the individuals who make decisions have implications for the organization. These characteristics will be the cause for CEOs to make certain decisions (García-Sánchez et al., 2019; Chin et al., 2013; García-Sánchez & Martínez-Ferrero, 2019), such as the level of disclosure of the SDGs. This theory is based on two fundamental principles: first, managers make decisions based on how they interpret the context that surrounds the decision and, second, these interpretations are partial and are biased by their individual characteristics and the experiences that each one has lived (Wang et al., 2015). UET is linked to the limited rationality of Simon (1958), who stated that people make decisions based on an emotional part in addition to the rational one, since we do not have all the information or all the time to analyze the information available as to make a decision based on absolute rationality (Alazzani et al., 2019; Tran & Pham, 2020). Therefore, CEOs will make limited rational decisions (Hambrick & Mason, 1984), which means that, if we want to understand the behavior of an organization, it will be necessary to study the attributes of its CEO (Liao et al., 2019). Thus, the UET has been broadly used for studying the effects of the attributes of the companies’ key decision-makers (i.e., the board of directors and the CEO) in corporate strategies (Chang et al., 2017; Naseem et al., 2017; Endrikat et al., 2021). Building on the UET’s perspective, a company’s inclination to engage in CSR may be influenced by its CEO’ preferences and priorities which, in turn, stem from her/his personality, values and experiences (Hambrick and Mason, 1984; Petrenko et al., 2016; Aibar-Guzmán & Frías- Aceituno, 2021). 3.2.2 Hypotheses development Several studies analyze and affirm that the personal attributes and skills of the CEO (e.g., age, gender, international experience, educational level, trust, political preferences, religion, sentimental status) are reflected in CSR strategies and performance (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Arena et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2018; García-Sánchez & Martínez-Ferrero; Aibar-Guzmán & Frías-Aceituno, 2021). Overall, the results indicate that those companies with CEOs with more experience, ability, power or international experiences will be more likely to invest in CSR (Garcia-Sánchez et al., 2020b). The same goes for women, liberals, and married CEOs (Alazzani et al., 2019; Chin et al., 2013; Hegde & Mishra, 2019; Okafor & Ujah, 2020; Tran & Pham, 2020; Yuan et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2018; Zou et al., 2020; Zribi & Boufateh, 2020). 3.2.2.1 Gender Although the literature on gender diversity attributes to women managers a high orientation towards CSR and corporate transparency (Monteiro et al., 2021b), the studies provide mixed results. Friske et al. (2020) show that the gender of CEOs influences CSR disclosure in such a way that those companies led by women CEOs will be more willing to disclose CSR information in corporate reports than companies with a man CEO. However, Suárez-Rico et al. (2018) obtained different results when studied the effects that the CEO’s gender has on the level of disclosure her/his company makes about its CSR activities on the social network Twitter. In their study, no significant relationship was found between these variables. On the other hand, Malik et al. (2020) found that gender is indifferent in the level of disclosure of CSR. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis: H3.1: Companies with female CEOs will report more SDG information. 58 3.2.2.2 Age Regarding the relationship between age and CSR disclosure, again prior studies show contradictory findings. Friske et al. (2020) posited that the older the CEO, the less interest he will show in this type of practices but in their study no relationship was found between age and level of disclosure. Similarly, Suárez-Rico et al. (2018) found no significant effect of the CEO age on the level of disclosure of CSR activities on the social network Twitter. Conversely, Malik et al. (2020) document a positive relationship between the level of CSR disclosure by a company and the age of its CEO. These mixed results can be explained because, as observed by Abernethy et al. (2019), when analyzing the influence of the CEO’s age on CSR activities, a problem may arise, known as the "horizon problem", which consists in the fact that the older the CEO, and consequently the shorter the time of job left in the company, the more reluctant he/she will be to make decisions that are beneficial to the company in the long run if such decisions are costly to him/her in the short run. This issue will also affect disclosure of such activities. Therefore, based on this potential problem and considering the results of chapter 2 regarding employees, we propose the following hypothesis: H3.2: Companies with young CEOs will report more SDG information. 3.2.2.3 Education Ma et al. (2019) state that the higher the educational level of the CEO, the more likely he/she will be to prepare CSR reports, and find a positive relationship between these two variables. In a similar way, Lewis et al. (2014) link CSR disclosure with educational level and show that the higher the educational level, the more likely the CEO will be to disclose voluntary CSR information. Accordingly, we propose the following hypothesis: H3.3: Companies with CEOs with a high-level of education will report more SDG information. 3.2.2.4 Nationality Al-Duais et al. (2021) defend the role played by the CEO’s nationality in decision-making, including CSR reporting. Human beings establish sentimental bonds with the geographical areas to which they belong and, therefore, the decisions made by an individual are related to their local bonds. Consequently, it is more likely that the CEOs who work in their own country have a greater interest in protecting it and carrying out actions favorable to the environment or social, among others. (Hernández et al., 2010; Ren et al., 2021). Therefore, it can be thought that the fact of acting in a local environment will make CEOs feel more committed when making decisions that affect the society in which they carry out their activities. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis: H3.4: Companies with local CEOs will report more SDG information. 3.2.2.5 Tenure The literature considers this variable as one of the most influential when analyzing CEO decisions (Khan et al., 2020; Al-Duais et al., 2021). Nevertheless, contradictory results are observed regarding its influence on CSR. Some authors document a positive relationship (Huang et al., 2013; Cho et al., 2019) whereas others find a negative relationship (Chen et al., 2019; Khan et al., 2020, 2021). It makes sense to think that the time a CEO has been in the company will be directly related to his/her knowledge of the company, assuming that the longer time he/she has been in the position, the more he/she knows the company (Al-Duais et al., 2021) and, consequently, he/she will feel 59 more connected with the company and will look for the best options to achieve a good image and reputation. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis: H3.5: Companies with CEOs with more years of tenure will report more SDG information. 3.2.2.6 Narcissism Narcissists are understood as those individuals who partially interpret reality “because it is reflected in their own image and constantly seek attention and reinforcement of their positive selfviews" (Petrenko et al., 2014, p. 265). These people show a high degree of self-love and selfadmiration (Tang et al., 2017; Al-Shammari et al., 2019). Therefore, it can be inferred that this kind of individuals will make decisions that cause an increase in the attention directed towards them, as may be the case with SDG engagement and reporting. These types of activities are increasingly present socially and, in media, these decisions are usually linked with company managers. Accordingly, these well-executed initiatives are likely to result in a positive image of the CEO (Tang et al., 2017; Lin et al., 2022). Also, due to their personality, these people will try to avoid criticism or, what is equivalent in this case, socially irresponsible actions (Petrenko et al., 2014). Consequently, we propose the following hypothesis: H3.6: Companies with narcissistic CEOs will report more SDG information. 3.3. MODEL AND VARIABLES 3.3.1 Model With the objective to know the effect of CEO’s attributes on SDG disclosure, we propose the following Equation [1], including some control variables with the intention of avoid biased results: SDGi,t = ß0 + ß1 Genderi,t + ß2 Agei,t + ß3 Educationi,t + ß4 Nationalityi,t + ß5 Tenurei,t + ß6 Narcissismi,t + ß7 bsizei,t + ß8 bindependencei,tt + ß9 bfemi,t + ß10 CEOdualityi,t + ß11 CSRcomi,t + ß12 firmsizei,t + ß13 age companiesi,t + ß14 type of industryi,t + ß15 ROAi,t + ß16 Year + i,t + ηi,t [Equation 1] 3.3.2 Sample We focus the study on the Spanish context. Considering that the companies that disclose more information about the SDGs are the largest, and following García-Sanchez et al. (2022), the sample selected to carry out this study is made up of the 35 companies that make up the Ibex-35. We analyze the data belonging to the 2015-2020 period. Thus, we have a panel data of 217 observations. 3.3.3 Variables 3.3.3.1 Dependent variable: SDG Reporting To analyze the level of SDG disclosure in each of the companies, we have used the methodology applied by Hummel & Skezely (2021) and we have basically followed 2 steps. The information obtained for this variable comes from the annual reports prepared by the companies. In the first place, we used a textual analysis with the intention of rapidly analyzing whether the reports 60 provide information on the SDGs and, once those that did provide the required information were detected, we carried out a content analysis, one of the most used methods when analyzing sustainability disclosure (Álvarez et al., 2021; Erin & Bamigboye, 2021; Gambetta et al., 2021; Monteiro et al., 2021). Each author read in depth each of the reports published by the sample companies and answered the questions made by Hummel & Skezely, which are shown in Table 26, to determine a value associated with the level of disclosure. Table 26. SDG disclosure measurement Disclosure Indicator Measurement Definition and prioritization DEF1: Does the statement from the senior decision-maker reference the SDGs? 0 (no) / 1 (yes) DEF2: Does the report provide general information on the SDGs? 0 (no) / 1 (yes) DEF3: Does the report provide information on the process of SDG prioritization? 0 (no) / 1 (yes) DEF4: Does the report provide information on the outcome of SDG prioritization (i.e. the SDGs they relate to)? 0 (no) / 1 (yes) DEF5: Does the SDG prioritization relate to negative impacts in addition to positive ones? 0 (no) / 1 (yes) Measurement and analysis MEA1: Does the report provide information on qualitative targets related to the SDGs? 0 (no) / 1 (yes) MEA2: Does the report provide information on quantitative targets related to the SDGs? 0 (no) / 1 (yes) MEA3: Does the report provide information on specific (past or ongoing) actions related to achieving the SDGs? 0 (no) / 1 (yes) MEA4: Does the report provide qualitative information on the outcome of these actions? 0 (no) / 1 (yes) MEA5: Does the report provide quantitative information on the outcome of these actions 0 (no) / 1 (yes) MEA6: Does the report provide information on future actions related to achieving the SDGs? 0 (no) / 1 (yes) Source: Hummel & Skezely (2021, p. 10) 3.3.3.2 Independent variables: Attributes CEO Based on prior literature, the independent variables considered in this study are the following: gender, measured as a dichotomous variable (1=male; 0=female); age; educational level, establishing four levels (1=non-university, 2=university, 3=postgraduate, 4=PhD); nationality, measured as a dichotomous variable (1=foreign CEO; 0=Spanish CEO); tenure, and narcissism. To measure the last variable, we follow the scale developed by Lin et al. (2022). Thus, we analyzed the photos of the CEO published in the annual reports and stablished different levels of narcissism (1=there is no photo; 2=photo of the CEO accompanied but it occupies less than half a page; 3=photo of the CEO accompanied but it occupies more than half a page; 4= photo of the CEO only and occupies less than half a page; 5= photo of the CEO only and occupies more than half a page). The data from all the variables were obtained from the annual reports. 61 3.3.2.3. Control variables Some characteristics of the firms were included in the model as control variables: board size (number of directors of the board), board independence (percentage of independent directors), board feminine (percentage of female directors), CEO duality (measured as a dichotomous variable, 0=there is no duality, 1=duality), CSR commission (0=no commission, 1=there are a CSR commission), firm size (logarithm of total assets), company age, industry (differentiating the following categories: 1=construction; 2= oil and energy; 3= pharmaceutical; 4=textile; 5=consumer services, transport and distribution; 6=technology and telecommunications; 7=financial services; 8=real estate services; 9=tourism and hospitality) and ROA. The data referring to these variables have been obtained from the SABI (Iberian Balance Analysis System database). 3.4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.4.1 Descriptives and correlations Table 27 shows the descriptive statistics for the variables included in the model. Table 27. Descriptive statistics Variable Obs. Mean Std.dev. SDG 217 2.8064 3.2374 Gender 217 0.9725 0.1643 Year 217 55.9262 7.4320 Education 217 2.8847 0.6530 Foreign CEO 217 0.1059 0.3085 Tenure 217 7.0921 6.7823 Narcissism 217 3.1013 1.5362 Board size 217 12.4884 2.7269 Board independence 217 0.492655 0.1288 Board femenine 217 0.221403 0.1096 CEO duality 217 0.2396 0.4278 CSR/ESG comission 217 0.2534 0.4359 Firm size 217 9.8866 0.9641 Company age 217 47.77 39.7432 Industry 217 3.91 2.5706 ROA 217 3.2655 9.0253 In Table 28 we show the bivariate correlations. Analyzing these data, it can be concluded that we will not have multicollinearity problems. 62 Table 28. Correlations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 Sdg 1.0000 2 Gender -0.0449 1.0000 3 Year 0.01002 -0.0585 1.0000 4 Educ 0.2150 -0.0298 0.0364 1.0000 5 F_ceo -0.1184 0.0581 0.0317 -0.0310 1.0000 6 Tenure 0.0424 -0.0102 0.5817 0.2041 -0.7128 1.0000 7 Narc 0.1036 -0.1172 -0.0756 -0.0114 -0.0716 -0.0609 1.0000 8 Period 0.4753 0.0039 0.0954 -0.0312 0.1195 0.0776 -0.0051 1.0000 9 Bsize 0.2016 0.1026 -0.1378 -0.0280 -0.1113 -0.2720 0.0124 0.0048 1.0000 10 Bind 0.1056 -0.0560 0.1069 0.1396 0.0343 0.1006 0.0039 0.1016 -0.0284 1.0000 11 Bfem 0.2440 -0.1547 -0.0551 0.1164 0.0289 0.0107 0.0343 0.3562 0.2627 0.4810 1.0000 12 Ceo_d -0.0031 0.0947 0.1730 -0.0167 0.1925 0.4534 0.0403 -0.0636 -0.0929 0.0177 0.0129 1.0000 13 Csr_c 0.2186 0.0983 0.0687 0.0868 0.0059 0.2050 -0.0109 0.2136 0.0395 0.1847 0.2956 0.1941 1.0000 14 fsize 0.2698 -0.2107 -0.0966 0.1063 -0.0223 -0.3020 -0.0501 0.0616 0.4887 0.1746 0.4087 -0.1779 0.0408 1.0000 15 Age 0.0909 -0.0201 0.3035 -0.0165 -0.1419 0.0910 0.1442 0.0275 0.2636 -0.0580 0.0930 -0.0504 0.2342 0.4056 1.0000 16 Ind 0.0413 -0.2030 -0.1101 0.0022 -0.2334 -0.1567 0.2168 -0.0177 0.1699 0.1709 0.1654 -0.2965 -0.3064 0.2912 -0.1126 1.0000 17 ROA 0.1453 0.0611 -0.2037 0.1068 -0.0832 -0.0939 0.0837 0.119 -0.1264 0.0067 -0.0141 -0.0817 -0.0076 0.0161 0.0164 -0.1164 1.0000 63 3.4.2 Main results The following Table shows the results obtained by estimating Equation [1] to test the hypotheses above mentioned. Estimations were computed by using Tobit estimations for panel data. To check the robustness of the results (second and third column) we apply the bootstrapping technique (Ender, 2011) and observe that with the variations made in the dependent variable, the results continue to reflect the same patterns, which indicates a high level of robustness and favors the results obtained by the model. Table 29. Analysis model SDG Coefficient (Std. error) SDG Coeff. Bootstrap Robust. Gender -0.6431 (1.1278) -0.9210 (.1673) -.1025 (.3590) Year 0.0253 (0.0323) .0021 (.00479) .00063 (.0102) Education 0.0946*** (0.2786) .1074*** (.0413) 0.3064*** (.0886) Foreign CEO -1.9059*** (0.6438) -.2384** (.0955) -.5700*** (.0204) Tenure -0.0085 (0.0423) -.0036 (-0068) -.0059 (.0134) Narcissism 0.2767** (0.1235) -0.1416 (.0183) .0739* (.0393) Board size 0.1912** (0.0784) .0239** (.0116) .04302* (.0249) Board independence 0.6546 (1.5892) .1841 (.2357I .0935 (.5058) Board femenine -4.1541* (2.1670) -.5212 (.3215 -1.3519* (.6898) CEO duality 0.6998 (0.5128) .1459 (.0760) .2563 (.1632) CSR/ESG comission 0.8938* (0.4603) .0899 (.0683) .2885* (.1465) Firm size 0.9491*** (0.2841) .1249** (.0421) .3059*** (.0904) Company age -0.0123*** (0.0059) --.0009 (.0008) -.0028 (.00188) Industry -0.0640 (0.0864) -.0208 (0.1283) -.0124 (.0275) ROA 0.9695 (0.1111) .0046 (.0029) .01658*** (.0063) periodcod -15600 (3.4024) .1167 (.0164) -.2859 (.0353) The results showed that the education of the CEO (coeff=.0946; p<0.01) has a positive and statistically significant impact on the level of SDG disclosure made by companies. This result confirms the Hypothesis 3.3 and is consistent with prior research findings. Specifically, it is in line with the results obtained by Lewis et al. (2019) Ma et al. (2019). Therefore, it can be said that Spanish IBEX-35 companies with CEOs with a higher education level will disclose more information about the SDGs. Moreover, the results showed that the nationality of the CEO (coeff=-1.9059: p<0.05) has a negative and statistically significant impact on the level of SDG disclosure made by companies. Taking account that this variable is a dummy coded as 0 (Spanish CEO) and 1 (foreign CEO), this finding indicated that those IBEX-35 firms with local CEOs tend to disclose a higher level of SDG information. Thus, we can accept the Hypothesis 3.4. Furthermore, our result is consistent with 64 prior research findings, specifically, those obtained by Al-Duais et al. (2021) or Ren et al. (2021). However, in the interpretation of this finding should be considered that most of the CEOs of the sample companies are Spanish. On the other hand, the results also showed that the CEO narcissism (coef=.2767; p<0.05) has a positive and statistically significant impact on the level of SDG disclosure made by companies, which allows us to confirm the Hypothesis 3.6 and, therefore, we can assert that IBEX-35 companies with narcissistic CEO will disclose more information about the SDGs. This finding is consistent with the results obtained by Petrenko et al. (2014) or Al-Shammari et al. (2019). As regards the remaining attributes of the CEO that have been analyzed in this study (CEO gender, age of the CEO, and tenure) no significant relationship has been found. Accordingly, the related hypotheses (H3.1, H3.2 and H3.5) cannot be accepted. It is in line with the results obtained by Huang (2012), Glass et al. (2015) or Oh et al. (2018). However, it is necessary to emphasize that the sample is made up mostly of men, which indicates two issues. First of all, the reality that exists in the business world in terms of the number of management positions held by women, which is still a long way from achieving an equal situation, and which brings us to the second point. In this case, probably, the results regarding CEO gender they are not significant because the female representation of the sample is too small to show significant results. Regarding control variables, the results show a positive and significative relationship between board size (coeff=.1912: p<0.05) and the fact that companies have a CSR committee (coeff=0.8938; p<0.1), and the level of SDGs disclosure. These findings are consistent with the existing literature and with the current regulations of the European Union (EU), which oblige large companies to comply with certain reporting standards. However, we can observe a negative and significative effect regarding the feminine percentage of the board (coeff=-4.1514; p<0.1). Moreover, firm age presents a negative and significative relationship (coeff=-0.1235; p<0.05) with the level of SDGs disclosure, so we can state that younger companies will disclose more information about the SDGs. These results are consistent with prior studies like Manita et al. (2018) or Ismail & Latiff (2019). 3.5 CONCLUSIONS Nowadays, more and more stakeholders are demanding information regarding business contribution to the SDGs (García-Sánchez et al., 2022). In these activities, the CEO, a fundamental figure in the company’s decision-making (Wei et al., 2018), has a main role in this regard and her/his personal attributes, values, and experiences will influence her/his company SDG practices. After reviewing the literature and observing the growing interest of this topic, we hypothesized the effect of several CEO’s personality attributes (gender, age, education, nationality, and narcissism) on her/his level of disclosure on SDG. Our results show that some of these characteristics (education, nationality, and narcissism) influence SDG reporting. Specifically, our results indicate that Spanish IBEX-35 companies with CEOs with a higher education level, local CEOs, and narcissistic CEO will disclose more information about the SDGs. This study contributes to academic research by increasing the available literature on the role of CEO’s personal characteristics in business decision-making. In particular, we extend the study of the effect of CEOs’ attributes on CRS to the level of disclosure of information on the business contribution to the SDGs, providing new evidence on a highly emerging research topic. In this respect, considering that, despite the key role that companies must play in the achieving of the SDGs (Raub & Martin-Rios, 2019; Sachs & Sachs, 2021), their participation continues to be modest and is conditioned by firm size and corporate effort (Jun & Kim, 2021), our findings stress the 65 importance of “choosing the CEO well” (Weng & Chen, 2017, p. 224) for overcoming the challenging task to reaching the 2030 Agenda. The main limitation in this study is the small size of the sample, and the fact that we analyze only one country and the largest companies. Therefore, future research could adopt a broader scope considering other countries and SMEs. 72 in all the studies with the aim of obtaining comparable results for all the companies (Lahouel et al., 2021). We propose the following hypotheses: H4.1: The method used in the elaboration of the ESG index will influence the results obtained 4.2.2 Corporate social responsibility and Financial Performance The fact that society is increasingly involved with CSR activites causes stakeholders to demand this actions, so CSR could be used as a tool to statisfy stakeholders needs (Brandão et al., 2017; Famiyeh, 2017). Hence, the academic world is emphasizing the importance of taking into account the interest of stakeholders and achieves their engagement in CSR practices (Suriyaprongpapai, 2021). Stakeholder engagement makes reference to the process of comunicate or involves stakeholders into organizations activities, in this case, particularly, in CSR activities (Suriyaprongpapai, 2021). The act of demonstrate that their actions, in addition to benefits for society and environment, are also beneficial for the organization, will help to explain their implementation, so it is essential that every stakeholders understand the scope of CSR activities (Arendt and Brettel, 2010). Several studies are made about the consequences that CSR activities have for companies. A good image, the increasing of employees motivation or the decline of employees turnover are some of the benefits that CSR has on different fields within an organization (Babajee et al., 2021). Aguinis and Glavas (2012) conclude that socioenvironmental performance decrease risks for companies attract investors and improve perceived management quality. All of these results provoke that finally, CSR imply a competitive advantage for business (Wang et al., 2014; Melo et al., 2020). Váldez Juárez et al. (2018, p.1) claims that “CSR is one of the most successful business actions to have emerged in the last two decades”, in addition to being essential for the survival of companies. This is a fundamental tool in the strategy of a company to make them competitive (Bai and Chang, 2015; Bahta, 2020). The link between CSR and performance is a topic that has been extensively studied in the academic literature (Nguyen et al, 2021) from different perspectives (Vlachos et al., 2009; Arendt and Brettel, 2010). Some authors analyze the relationship between CSR and financial performance (Chtourou & Triki, 2017), others between financial performance and CSR and others analyze this relationship in a bidirectional way. In this study we are going to focus on the first approach. There are different schools of thoughts about the symbol of the relationship of these two variables. On the one hand, the position against the existence of a postive link was led by Milton Friedman (1972) and neoclassical economists argued that CSR supposed a cost for companies (Blasi et al, 2018; Bahta, 2020). He defended that the only objective that a company has is the economic, therefore its activity should be based solely on increasing profits. On the other hand, the positive relationship between these two variables was originally defended by Freeman (1984). A wide array of studies of the last times demonstrate a positive relationship between these two variables, defending that CSR activities should be part of business management, because it helps to improve financial performance and consequently to achieve competitive advantages (McWilliams and Siegel, 2000; Hart and Sharma, 2004; Kolk and Pinkse, 2008; Park et al., 2014; DiSegni et al., 2015; Brandão et al., 2017; Martínez-Conesa et al., 2017; Bahta., 2020; Melo et al., 2020). It would be an absolutely nonsense think that companies apply CSR if they only involve costs for the company (Margolish and Walsh, 2003; Lioui and Sharma, 2012; Chtourou and Triki, 2017; Melo et al., 2020). One of the main meta-analysis made about this topic (Margolis et al, 2007) shows a result totally impartial. Horvathova’s (2010) deals with studies in which half of them show a positive result and the other half a negative or even non-existant (Lioui and Sharma, 2012). Other works 73 talks about the existence of a lot of biases that make the results inconclusive (Bruna and Lahouel, 2022). Some authors go further, and once they take this relationship for granted, they want to analyze not CSR as a global concept but the effect of the different dimensions in financial performance (Chtourou and Triki, 2017; Kuzey et al., 2021). For example, environmental performance shows a positive influence in financial performance (Iwata and Okada, 2011; Brandão et al., 2017; Melo et al, 2020), what will make companies harm the environment less if they see positive economic results by not doing so. In contrast, there are some studies that analyze the same relationship and provide negative results (Brammer et al., 2005; Brammer and Millington, 2008). We consider that ESG will have a positive effect on company performance, so we propose the following hypotheses: H4.2: ESG performance influences positively in companies’ performance H4.2.1: ESG Environmental performance influences positively in companies’ performance H4.2.2: ESG Social performance influences positively in companies’ performance H4.2.3: ESG Laboral performance influences positively in companies’ performance H4.2.4: ESG Government performance influences positively in companies’ performance 4.2.3 Corporate social responsibility and Financial Performance in SMEs Analyzing the literature about CSR firstly and it nexus with financial performance draws attention that there is a business sector in which the research is clearly scarce. Most of the studies that analyze this variables refers to large corporations, being SMEs forgotten in this field, without taking into account that SMEs are key in business (Reverte et al, 2016; Martínez-Conesa et al, 2017; Bahta, 2020; Salam et al, 2020; Kim and Kim, 2021; Le et al, 2021). Clearly, SMEs have been less studied on this subject and need to open a gap in this area (Choongo, 2017; García- Sánchez y Martínez-Ferrero, 2019). The role of SMEs in society is relevant enough for the academic world to take them into account when carrying out empirical work on CSR-business performance. This kind of organizations is the engine of the economy, especially at a regional level, asumming “more than 99% of the overall number of companies in Europe” (European Commission, 2014). Moreover, SMEs employ two-thirds of the European community, so there is no doubt about its impact on the economy and the interest that may have to research about this companies (Gallardo-Vázquez et al, 2019; Le et al, 2021). One of the main characteristics of SMEs derived from its size is that the role of management and ownership falls on the same person (Gallardo-Vázquez et al, 2019; Magrizos et al, 2021). This means that CSR decisions are made by the owners of SMEs (Magrizos et al, 2021; Ramecesse, 2021). Moreover, the link between CSR and organizations can be much closer in the case of SMEs because of the proximity that they have with their environment (Reverte et al., 2016; Graafland, 2018; Magrizos et al, 2021) operating in their local society. This close relationship encourages SMEs to be more commited with the local communities (Magrizos et al, 2021). Therefore it is easier for this organizations to keep a closer relationship with their stakeholders, to satisfy consumers or to motivate workers among others actions. Consequently, CSR can be a tool for improve SMEs competitiveness (Bahta, 2020; Kim and Kim, 2021). Another characteristic derived from this close relationship is that CSR management is not done in such a formal way as in large listed companies. In contrast, the main inconvenience that SMEs have to face is the fact that, because of their size, they are likely to have fewer resources to implement CSR activities (Otero- González et al., 2021; Kim and Kim, 2021). Taking account this strong bond with stakeholders and that the main theory that supports the existence of a positive relationship between CSR and financial performance is stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984), we will rely on it to carry out this study. During the last years, this theory has 74 become one of the framewoks most used by the academic community to conceptualize and understand issues related to corporate ethical responsibilities (Schwartz and Carroll, 2008, Dmytriyev et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2021). Freeman (2004) defends that for an organization to be considered socially responsable, the first step is to take into account its stakeholders, since they all intervene in performance outcomes (Bučiūnienė and Kazlauskaitė, 2012; Odriozola and Baraibar- Diez, 2017). The management of a company should not focus solely on the economic objective, it is also necessary to ensure the interests of the sktaheolders (Freeman, 2007). The stakeholder theory considers fundamental for the survival of an enterprise the fact that it has the support of its stakeholders, therefore it is necessary that they agree and persist with the activities that the organizations implement (Li et al, 2016; Baric, 2017; Bahta, 2020). Galant and Cadez (2017) maintain that the way in which companies manage their relationship with stakeholders will establish the success of this company, so that the better that management is, the more successful it will be over time and viceversa. Accordingly, if any stakeholder is not satisfied the company may be at risk. In these days, more and more SMEs are engaging CSR strategies (Pastrana et al, 2014; Graafland, 2017; Gallardo-Vázquez et al, 2019). SMEs can use these activities like a way to distinguish themselves from their competitors (Gallardo-Vázquez et al, 2019). The presence of CSR activities in SMEs is starting in literature, but more empirical evidence is needed to demonstrate if the results obtained in large companies are attributable to SMEs (Reverte et al, 2016; Choi et al., 2018). “The relevant extant literature on the knowledge gap that exists in the CSR-SME relationship is still far from constructing a consolidated and generally accepted model to investigate such relationships, as well as providing a responsible perspective on the management of SMEs” (Martínez-Conesa et al, 2017, p.2375). Some studies show that the size of the company influences in the effects that CSR causes in companies (Ramecesse, 2021). López-Pérez et al. (2017) show that the bigger the company is the stronger is the nexus between CSR and corporate reputation, brand image and financial value. Martínez-Martínez et al. (2017) also defends that the size of a company will influence on the strength of the relationship between CSR and financial performance. Choi et al. (2018) show that in Korean SMEs there is a strong relationship between CSR and financial performance. Other authors achieve the same results (Madueño et al., 2016; Ratnawati et al., 2018; Khan et al., 2019; Neculaesei et al., 2019) supporting the stakeholder theory. Moreover, Le et al. (2021) results show that there is a direct and positive relationship with these variables, if not also with business continuity. Others studies find that CSR has a significant positive impact on financial performance and demostrate the moderator effect of different variables: firm reputation (Agyemang and Ansong, 2017; Bahta et al., 2020) and innovation capability (Bahta et al, 2020b). These authors made their analysis in developing countries, attending to the need for research on this topic presented by these countries. Martínez-Conesa et al. (2017) research show that the greater the involvement of SMEs in CSR, the greater their performance. Moreover, they analyze the moderating role of innovation, and they confirm that it influences this relationship in a positive way. Soewarno et al. (2021) analyzes the link between CSR and business performance, and, in addition to demonstrate that there is a positive link between these two variables, they confirm that competitive pressure is a mediating variable of this relationship. In this line, other authors defend this positive relationship and confirm the moderating role of brand trust and brand loyalty (Than et al, 2021), organizational learning (Váldez-Juárez et al, 2019) and entrepreneurial orientation (Váldez-Juárez et al, 2021). Ikram et al. (2019) demonstrate how CSR impacts on corporate reputation, brand image and financial value of the company. Moreover, Moneva-Abadía et al., (2018) analyzes how SMEs orientation toward CSR can improve competitive success, mediating by innovation and 75 performance. Their results claim that SMEs should engage with CSR activities if they want success. Nejati et al. (2017) also find a positive relationship between SMES orientation toward CSR and reputation. Some researchers break down CSR activities into their dimensions and analyze the impact that each of them has on organizations. Bacinello et al. (2020) corroborate that economic, social and environmental dimensions cause a competitive advantage in companies. Choongo (2017) works with social and environmental dimensions and show a significant impact on financial performance. Váldez-Júarez (2017) analyzes social and economic dimension and demonstrate a direct and positive relationship between this activities and profitability. Recent studies (Achi et al, 2022; Hang et al., 2022) also show a positive relationship between CSR and performance. Even though numerous prior studies find a positive link between CSR and firm performance, others find an insignificant relationship between CSR and financial performance. Ansong (2017) analyzes the direct relationship between CSR and financial performance, and he can only affirm that there is a relationship between the variables when it intervenes stakeholder engagement as a moderator variable, so directly these two concepts have not a signifcative nexus. Moreover, Cantele and Cassia (2020) analyze something similiar between sustainability implementation and firm performance, finding that this relationship is only positively when business success competitiveness and customer satisfaction play their roles as moderating variables. The same occurrs with Ramcese (2021) works, who analyze CSR and firm performance and finds a positive relationship but insignificant, this relationship is only significative when the author includes corporate image and corporate governance as mediators. An interesting approach is the one made by Uzhagova et al. (2018) who differentiate companies based on their workspace (domestic vs. internationalized) and find that the relationship between CSR and competitive performance only exists in the case of internationalised business. Based on a Spanish SMEs sample, Cegarra-Navarro et al. (2016) conclude that it will be the economic dimension of CSR, and not the social one, that determines an improvement in financial performance. Reverte et al. (2016) carry out a study in which they posit a relationship between innovation and organizatonal performance, considering both large and small organizations. Palacios-Manzano et al. (2021) find a positive relationship between CSR and performance, considering job satisfaction and innovation as moderating variables The above mentioned characteristics of SMEs make this type of comanies work in a different way. Therefore, the implementation of CSR practices also requires a specific analysis (Magrizos et al, 2021). So, the following hypothesis is proposed: H4.3: SMEs will find it more difficult than large companies to monetize the results from ESG implementation 4.2.3.1 Crisis Magrizos et al. (2021) provides a very interesting conclusion that adds more value to the relevance of CSR activities. They analyze the role of this variable in a context of economic crisis and conclude that there is a relationship between CSR and financial performance, which means a positive aspect of CSR practices during crisis. This raises a very interesting approach considering what role CSR activities play in periods of crisis, something that not many authors have investigated (Folger-Laroude et al., 2022; Ursic & Cestar, 2022). This is a fairly unknown topic but it can provide very valuable information to companies. The fact that CSR can influence in the survival or resilience of a company in an unstable economic period can be a guide to manage this type of situations. The fact that a country is experiencing a period of crisis supposes an atmosphere 76 of uncertainty in all spheres (social, economic, political...). Therefore, companies must face these situations and look for tools that help them overcome these periods (Pais Seles et al., 2018). We are currently experiencing a global economic crisis derived from the Covid-19 pandemic, which has caused companies to face a situation never seen before. The global economy has been completely stopped for a few months and the financial results of companies have been affected. Therefore, it is interesting to know what role CSR activities play in this type of situation (Hwang et al., 2021). Given the relevance and awareness that exists today in terms of sustainability, it is necessary to know if when the main activity of companies is affected in a negative way, it is worth investing in this type of activity since they can improve this situation or they will simply suppose an additional expense. Previous literature relates the idea that economic crises are accompanied by a reduction in CSR spending, since the priorities of companies change (Kavoura and Sahinidis, 2015). Hwang et al. (2021) also discuss what role CSR management plays in business financial performance and how these types of activities can be a tool to overcome the current economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. As previously mentioned, the Spanish economy depends fundamentally on small and mediumsized companies, so taking into account the current situation derived from the COVID-19 pandemic, we are going to analyze the role of CSR in the current situation is during the pandemic. We proposed the following hypotheses: H4.4: Companies with a higher level of ESG will present a higher level of resilience in periods of crisis H4.4.1: Companies with a higher level of ESG environmental will present a higher level of resilience in periods of crisis H4.4.2: Companies with a higher level of ESG social will present a higher level of resilience in periods of crisis H4.4.3: Companies with a higher level of ESG labor will present a higher level of resilience in periods of crisis H4.4.4: Companies with a higher level of ESG governance will present a higher level of resilience in periods of crisis 4.2.4 Influence of the visibility of the company’s commitment to CSR One variable that could help when standardizing the measurement of CSR activities and that must be taken into account in researchs is CSR disclosure. It consists in sharing and communicating to different stakeholders by companies the activities related to social responsibility that the company carries out (Buallay et al, 2020). The fact that more and more attention is paid to CSR and that business are more involved than ever in all aspects covered by these activities imply that there is a need to communicate CSR activities. Therefore, companies no longer only communicate economic-financial information but also address stakeholders to report on the responsbilities they acquire with society (Maqbool and Zammel, 2017; Kuzey et al, 2021). For these actions to be really effective, they need to be known and make known to the stakeholders (Baraibar-Díez and Sotorrío, 2018). It is not enough to implement CSR activities, it is essential to make them visible and communicate them (Arendt and Brettel, 2010; Bahta, 2020). It is clear that disclosure is a key tool that could be contextualized within the stakeholder theory (Odriozola and Baraibar-Diez, 2017; Baraibar-Díez and Sotorrío, 2018), since it is a way to respond to stakeholder interests (Baraibar-Díez and Sotorrío, 2018; Buallay et al., 2020). Nevertheless, it is also necessary to mention in this section ignaling theory (Spence, 1974). It is essential to consider this theory to explain the need for disclosure of non-financial information (Bae et al., 2018). The 77 publication of information by companies influences the decision-making of those who receive that information (Conellly, 2010). Signaling theory claims that when corporate information is made public, the company is sending different signals to its stakeholders, from which it will obtain a response (Bae et al., 2018; Taj, 2016). Thus, this theory supports manager’s intention to share information with the objective of receives signals from the market and their stakeholders (Bae et al., 2018). One of the main objectives of signaling theory is achieve an asymmetric information reduction which will lead to a competitive advantage for a company. For this regard, companies should disclose relevant and high quality information (Taj, 2016; Conelly et al., 2011; Bae et al., 2018). This theory is based on four elements: signaler, signals, receiver, and feedback First of all, signaler will be the people inside the organization who have useful information for the outside, in our case it will be managers or SMEs owners. These signalers send signals, it refers to disclosed information, these are signals sent abroad with the intention of influencing the opinion of stakeholders. In our case, the quality of the reports is going to determine the quality of the signals. Moreover, the receiver is the stakeholders that receive the information and finally, the feedback refers to the interactionts between signalers and receivers (Taj, 2016; Conelly et al., 2011; Bae et al., 2018). So, the tool that company has to reduce asymmetric information is sustainability reports (Bae et al., 2018). It is essential that information is disclosed properly, since it is useless to have a high level of CSR activities if that information is unknown to the stakeholders, who are the ones who will make decisions that will decide the success of the company. Therefore, management has to consider signaling as a strategic tool in the social and environmental investment decision-making process (Bae et al., 2018). The importance of this issue is so evident that it is increasingly common to see how companies develop codes of ethics and public reports in which they communicate their CSR activities, or are evaluated by third parties (Bučiūnienė and Kazlauskaitė, 2012). In this way they also cover the information needs of the stakeholders (Baraibar-Díez and Sotorrío, 2018). This relevance is also notable in the literature. Palazuelos et al. (2022) conducted a literature review to learn how it has evolved the research of non financial information in the last twenty years. The results show that clearly, in the recent decades this topic has gained importance, in 2000 there was no articles published on this subject, while in 2020 forty articles were indexed in JCR and Scopus databases, although actually, this topic begins to have a considerable presence in economic literature since 2018, which indicates the relvance of the topic we are dealing with. There are already works that state that CSR disclosure should alredy be considered as one more action within CSR (Garcia-Sanchez and GallegoAlvarez, 2012; Baraibar-Díez and Sotorrío, 2018). This means that companies will have double work, getting involved in these activities and preparing the information in the most accurate way possible to disclose it (Odriozola and Baraibar-Diez, 2017; Baraibar-Díez and Sotorrío, 2018). This new task will have consequences in company results, so companies should work on their sustainability reports if they want to maximize their benefits (Yang and Basile, 2021). Not only is communication important, but also how it is done. Depending on its elaboration, this information will be percieved credible or not (e.g. Du et al., 2010), or if they are aligned with stakeholder interest (e.g. Brammer & Pavelin, 2006; Yang and Basile, 2021). On the contrary, a poorly executed disclosure can lead to a series of disadvantages for the company. CSR reports can be used as a management strategy to create a symbolic image of the company without actually implementing CSR activities in a commited way (Cho et al., 2010; Behnam and MacLean, 2011). CSR disclosure could be used as a marketing tool. Economic literature shows how CSR reporting cans maniputale stakeholders decision-making when companies disclosed ambiguous information (García-Sánchez et al. 2020b; Parra-Domínguez et al, 2021). 78 There are studies that analyze the relationship between CSR (including disclosure and communication) and financial results (Brammer and Pavelin, 2006, 2016; Baraibar-Díez and Sotorrío, 2018). The advantages of this action are that the more information is disclosed about CSR by the company, more the company is engaged with CSR spending (Maqbool and Zammer, 2017). Moreover, transparency and performance increase and costs and risk decrease (Maignan and Ferrell, 2001; Orlitzky et al., 2003; Lindgreen et al., 2009). Baraibar-Díez and Sotorrío (2018) study the relationship between CSR and business reputation and observe that reputation improves when CSR activities are not only carried out, but also disclosed. (Buallay et al, 2020). Some authors state the importance of CSR disclosure in improving financial performance and thus gaining a competitive advantage (McWilliams et al., 2006; Porter and Kramer, 2006). CSR disclosure has consecuences on stakeholders’ trust and, if it is used properly, supports organizational sustainability (Buallay et al, 2020). Moreover, CSR disclosures trigger positive attitudes and higher productivity between internal stakeholders (Giang and Gung, 2021) Anyway, in Orlitzky (2013) meta-analysis, there is not a clear conclusion about the consequences that CSR have on companie results. It is important to investigate the relationship between CSR disclosure and firms’ performance (Buallay et al, 2020) If the process of disclosure non financial information is already complex in itself, even more so if we contextualize it in SMEs. As mentioned above, this type of companies have a series of peculiarities, and the fact of being small entails an added cost when it comes to publicly communicating CSR activities (Brammer and Millington, 2006; Ting, 2021). SMEs tend to use informal channels to communicate with their stakeholders, due to the closeness they have with them and for example, in these days, with the scope of social networks, it is very easy to communicate information in this way withou preparing profesional reports (Yang and Basile, 2021). Ting (2021) makes a comparison between SMEs and large companies and states that it is likely that large companies are capable of communicating actions that actually are not implemented, but SMEs do carry them out, although they have problems communicating them. With the objective of achieve a standarization when analyzing results for their comparison, the following hypothesis is states: H4.5: CSR disclosure influences positively in companies performance H4.6: CSR Comission influences positively in companies performance 4.2.5 CSR disclosure legal framework The objective of economic growth is sustainability; it is essential that all parts involved in economic activities are aware of the balance between economy, society and environment (Durán Domínguez, 2021). The relevance of this type of practices, along with the inequality that exists when implementing and carrying it out, assumes that CSR activities are no longer an option and the existence of a political-legal framework that regulates the implementation of this type of activities and their dissemination is beginning to be necessary. The information produced by companies on sustainability is mainly aimed at society and investors. Ernst and Young (2017) develop a study in which they emphasize the importance of nonfinancial information for investors, resulting in the majority of the surveyed sample recognizing that this information is crucial in their decision-making process. Thus, they will be able to make consistent decisions based on reliable information. Therefore, the insistence of the need for a consistent regulatory framework to prepare reporting standards that ensure the consistency and comparability of the information that is prepared by the companies, since about non-financial information “there is little, if any, reporting standardisation” (Galant and Cadez, 2017, p.677). 79 More and more institutions are pressuring companies to carry out CSR activities (Bai and Chang, 2015), and moreover, to comunicate them. There are already governments that force companies to dedicate a percentage of their profits to CSR activities (Maqbool and Zammer, 2017; Babajee et al., 2021), although in terms of disclosure, in some countries CSR reporting is not mandatory (Galant and Cadez, 2017), while in others it is already an imposition (Nizamuddin, 2018). In any case, this pressure does not only come from governments, other organizations (e.g. UN, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) continue in this line and have developed standards in this regard (Gallardo-Vázquez et al, 2019; Ramecesse, 2021). Companies have the responsibility to transmit information to stakeholders, thus guaranteeing transparency and their commitment to society. These qualities are essentials, because if disclosed CSR information is questioned, their impact on stakeholders will be negative (García Sánchez et al, 2020b). Therefore, companies are interested in ensure properly reports. (Ballou et al., 2018). Different frameworks have been developed by entities (academic instituitions, profesional corporations) to set guidelines when disclosing information on CSR (Muserra et al., 2019). The option most used by companies is the one elaborated for the GRI, whose objective is to help organizations to be transparent and to take responsibilty for the impacts that their activity causes in the environment and, consequently, to inform their stakeholders. Elaborate this reports and their disclosure is completely voluntary. Other reports used are: a guide for disclosing the business contribution to the achievement of the UN SDGs, the ISO 26000 Guidance on Social Responsibility, an international standard for social responsibility that includes corporate ethics, environmental protection, and labor (ISO, 2010); the International Integrated Reporting Council, Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development Guidelines among others (Oh and Park, 2015; Reverte et al, 2016; Palazuelos eta al., 2021; Ortiz-Martínez and Lázaro-Sánchez, 2021). The voluntariness of these reports makes necessary the existence of a public regulation that control the quantity and quality of information that is published. Thus at a European level, the EU started to get involved with the disclosure of non-financial information just under ten years ago (Palazueloso et al, 2021). One of the great challenges of regulatory frameworks for corporate information is to get companies to provide clearer information about their situation, as well as about their social impact. In 2014, the European Parliament and the Council on disclosure of non-financial information and information on diversity, published Directive 2014/95/EU. This directive was born with the aim of promoting transparency regarding the disclosure of CSR activities and guaranteeing comparability between European companies through their non-financial information (Santos-Jaén, 2018; Muserra et al., 2019; Palazuelos et al., 2021; Ortiz-Martínez and Lázaro-Sánchez, 2021). After this, many countries begin to oblige their large companies to provide non-financial information through two possible channels: included in the financial reports or through the publication of specific sustainability reports (Palazuelos et al., 2021; Ortiz-Martínez and Lázaro- Sánchez, 2021). If we analyze the situation in a national level, we should find the same commitment with sustainability regulations because Spain “is one of the most strongly committed to the presentation of non-financial information” (Sierra-García et al., 2018). Most companies that make their nonfinancial information public do soy voluntarily assuming the international reference standards issueed by the GRI, the reality is that the published sustainabiliy information is not homogeneus. Therefore, following the footsteps of the EU, it is approved the “Spanish CSR Strategy 2014–2020” (Santos-Jaén et al., 2021; Gallardo-Vázquez et al, 2019), applicable to every companie including SMEs (Martínez-Conesa et al, 2017; Ortiz-Martínez and Lázaro-Sánchez, 2021). Moreover the Real-Decreto ley 18/2017 and the Ley 11/2018 are approved, where the European regulation is included (Aibar-Guzmán, 2021). This regulation implies the obligation for certain companies to 80 formulate and publish a non-financial report in order to provide stakeholders with accurate, comparable and verifiable non-financial information on environmental, social and workforce issues. The law 11/2018 came to establish a legal requirement on the essential attributes that are required for information on sustainability: responsibility, participation, commitment and transparency. Governments obligation is to verify that these standards are implemented, for this reason, the EU decides to carry out an analysis of the impact on the 2014 Directive that revealed two fundamental circumnstances. On the one hand, that the non-financial information presented by the companies has not met the expectations of the users and, on the other, that the companies encounter difficulties derived from the lack of specificacion of the requirements regarding the information that they have to report (Durán Domínguez, 2021). These results in a new directive being published the 21 of April 2021. There are established new rules about sustainability reporting. One of the new proposals that shows the relevance that the CSR disclosure has in these days is the creation of a Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) by the European Comission (Marin et al., 2021; Ortiz Martínez, 2021; Tettamanzi et al., 2022). The purpose of this objective will be to confirm that sustainability reports comply with the standars proposed by the EU and disclose reliable and consistent information, thus achieving greater comparability and allowing this Exchange of information between organizations and stakeholders to be much more productive (Tettamanzi et al., 2022). The creation of this Directive is of vital importance to prevent diversity in disclosed information. 4.3.- EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS In this section we are going to explain and investigate the relationship between ESG and performance. We will analyze if the companies that implement ESG actions the most have a better performance and if these actions also improve performance in adverse economic circumstances such as the current one derived from the Covid-19 crisis. As we mentioned above, empirical studies to measure the implementation of ESG used several techniques, which causes the difficulty of comparing results. For this reason, and given the need to create an index that allows the best possible measurement of ESG and each of its dimension we are going to design an index that allows us to measure this variable. Next we will explain the procces, describe the data used and the variables analyzed. 4.3.1 Sample The sample is made up of 538 Spanish companies. Specifically, it is made up of 402 small companies (74.72%) and 136 medium or large companies (25.28%). The data with which we are going to work in this study have been obtained through a survey of all the companies that make up the sample. 4.3.2 Measuring the ESG implementation through an index To know the real situation of CSR, as well as its determinants and effects, it is necessary to develop a measure of the level of ESG practices in the companies. The index is made up of dichotomous variables and companies that have implemented a greater number of best practices actions will be considered more involved in ESG and will have a more advanced system. Below we show the composition of the ESGglobal index, which serves to determine the degree of the deployment of comprehensive ESG in companies (Figure 13). The index is composed by the integration of 63 variables and the data has been collected through a survey. As representative factors of the degree of ESG implementation, we use dichotomous variables and construct an index 81 to measure the degree of implementation. In addition, we also consider partial indicators of each dimension, grouped into four categories: Environmental, Social, Labor and Governance. Figure 13. ESG index structure The index is made up of dichotomous variables and companies that have implemented a greater number of actions will be considered more involved and commited with ESG management best practices. In the construction of the environmental indicator (E), it is positively valued that the company has environmental indicators and objectives, without penalties, and with actions to reduce climate change, or actions to promote the circular economy or biodiversity. It is also positively valued that the company has an environmental certification and considers the environment in the design of the strategy. In the construction of the social indicator (S), we differentiate between social (Ss) and labor (Sl) aspects. On the one hand, in the social field, it is assessed whether the company takes into account ESG criteria in the selection of suppliers, responsible communication practices, reports on the impacts of its products and promotes sustainability with customers or social development, among others. Regarding the labor dimension, the promotion of equality, inclusion, diversity, objectivity, flexibility and conciliation, among others are the most important factors considered. In the construction of the corporate governance indicator (G), the existence of an internal regulation, the dedication of the administrators, the information provided, the dimension, the independence, the selection criteria, the existence of ethical norms, the diversity in terms of knowledge and gender and the quality of financial information are considered. The details of the four dimensions that make up the index with their respective variables are explained in the Appendix 2. 4.3.2.1. Methodology to build the indices The construction of the indices can be done through various methods (Table 31) and the results can be sensitive to the way in which the indices are calculated. Previous work has not evaluated the effect that the way in which the indices are built may have. In this paper we use the MCDA index tool, proposed by Cinelli, Spada, Kim and Zhang (2020). The process has two key steps: normalization and aggregation. The first step is done to make the indicators and dimensions comparable on the same scale and in the second we define the form to combine the normalized ESGglobal Environmental (E) 13 items Social (S) 11 items Labor (L) 24 items Governance (G) 15 items 88 _cons 0.2855*** 0.1158*** 0.1178*** 0.3278 2.0862*** 0.7457 N 759 776 777 779 776 764 r2 0.0434 0.0478 0.0498 0.0113 0.0788 0.0548 Given what we've seen before, the results are sensitivity to the aggregation methods. Therefore, we have tried to work with harmonic means and it can be seen that the effect changes considerably with respect to the additive aggregation method. Using this method increases the correlations and consequently the significance, as we can see in Table 39. Table 39. Estimated model with harmonic means Variable ROE ROA CFLOW GROWTH ROAadj ROEadj ESGglobalArm 0.0776 -0.0095 -0.0251 0.5571** -0.115 1.0458 ESGglobalArmsq -0.1057 -0.009 0.0085 -0.7318** -0.4835 -1.6536 logTA -0.0088 -0.0028* -0.0033** -0.0291* 0.0970** 0.0790* family 0.0154 -0.0008 0.0076 0.0146 0.1539 0.0227 Solvency -0.0620** 0.0200** 0.0233*** -0.1188 -0.311 0.3074 Growth 0.0001 -0.0007 0.0013 -0.0451 -0.0013 YEAR YES YES YES YES YES YES SECTOR YES YES YES YES YES YES _cons 0.2266*** 0.0858*** 0.1180*** 0.4662** 0.0982 -0.4591 N 764 776 777 779 776 764 r2 0.0358 0.0424 0.0511 0.0158 0.0474 0.0456 We observe that the only variable with which a significant relationship is established is the growth, while no relationship is observed with ROE, ROA, cash flow or risk adjusted return. We observe that in the first case the relationship is positive and in the second negative. These results show that the difference in methods influence the results, thus supporting hypothesis 4.1. 4.4.2 Effects during the pandemic When analyzing the role played by global ESG and each of its subdimensions in crisis scenarios such as the one derived from the Covid-19 pandemic (Table 40), we observe the following. Only the social and labor indexes reflect a positive and significant relationship (0.0424 and 0.0281, respectively). This means that those actions aimed at social causes and those related to the workplace will be those that are associated with a higher level of resilience in unstable contexts. However, neither the global nor the environmental nor the governance index will be relevant in these situations. This implies that hypotheses 4.4.1 and 4.4.4 are rejected and 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 are accepted. Table 40. Effects during the pandemic Pandemic Resilience Variable Mglob MEnvirInd MSocInd MLabInd MGobInd ESGglobalnew 0.007 89 EnvirInd 0.0023 SocInd 0.0424* LabInd 0.0281** GobInd -0.0121 logTA 0.0414 0.0920** 0.0740** 0.0417 0.0948*** family -0.0299 -0.0812 -0.0634 0.0433 -0.0659 Solvency -0.5098** -0.3266 -0.4055* -0.3568* -0.3587 Growth 0.0528* 0.0679** 0.0655* 0.0532* 0.0587** SECTOR YES YES YES YES YES _cons 3.2632*** 2.7713*** 2.7729*** 3.1540*** 2.7967*** N 232 273 299 282 271 r2 0.0925 0.0729 0.09 0.0853 0.078 ROA Variable Mglob MEnvirInd MSocInd MLabInd MGobInd ESGglobalnew 0.0008 EnvirInd 0.0021 SocInd 0.0026 LabInd 0.0020* GobInd -0.0007 logTA -0.0096 -0.0114 -0.0128* -0.0104 -0.0049 family -0.0052 -0.0072 -0.007 -0.0012 0.0004 Solvency -0.0167 0.0218 0.0206 0.0339 -0.0073 Growth -0.0132*** -0.0124*** -0.0122** -0.0130*** -0.0124** SECTOR YES YES YES YES YES _cons 0.1369** 0.1355** 0.1316** 0.1183** 0.1186** N 232 273 299 282 271 r2 0.1109 0.0779 0.0922 0.0924 0.0777 ROE Variable Mglob MEnvirInd MSocInd MLabInd MGobInd ESGglobalnew 0.0009 EnvirInd 0.0032 SocInd 0.0031 LabInd 0.0033* GobInd 0.0002 logTA 0.0414 0.0920** 0.0740** 0.0417 0.0948*** family -0.0299 -0.0812 -0.0634 0.0433 -0.0659 Solvency -0.5098** -0.3266 -0.4055* -0.3568* -0.3587 Growth 0.0528* 0.0679** 0.0655* 0.0532* 0.0587** SECTOR YES YES YES YES YES _cons 0.1579 0.1918* 0.2053** 0.1305 0.12 N 232 273 299 282 271 r2 0.0518 0.0398 0.0437 0.0405 0.0251 Cash flow Variable Mglob MEnvirInd MSocInd MLabInd MGobInd 90 ESGglobalnew 0.0005 EnvirInd 0.0013 SocInd 0.0011 LabInd 0.0016* GobInd -0.0002 logTA -0.0063 -0.006 -0.0058 -0.0058 -0.0044 family 0.0003 -0.0005 0.001 0.0044 0.0004 Solvency 0.0237 0.0284 0.0358** 0.0402** 0.0316* Growth -0.0016 -0.001 -0.001 -0.0014 -0.0013 SECTOR YES YES YES YES YES _cons 0.1282** 0.1355** 0.1253** 0.1111** 0.1169** N 232 273 299 282 271 r2 0.0742 0.0654 0.0744 0.0738 0.0663 4.4.3 The effect of the degree of implementation considering the size of the companies In this section we are going to analyze the effect of the degree of implementation of CSR activities taking into account the size of the company (Table 41). By inserting a variable that takes into account the size, that is, the degree of development when they are small, things change considerably. Table 41. Effect of the degree of ESG implementation considering the size of the companies Variable ROE ROA CFLOW GROWTH ROAadj ROEadj ESGglobalnew 0.0011* 0.0006* 0.0004 0.0024 0.0175** 0.0214** ESGsmall -0.0008* -0.0005** -0.0002 -0.0025* -0.0239*** -0.0232*** logTA -0.0142** -0.0061** -0.0049* -0.0428** -0.0318 -0.0599 family 0.013 -0.001 0.0086 0.0138 0.0572 -0.0472 Solvency -0.0696** 0.0216*** 0.0212*** -0.1051 -0.226 0.4081 Growth -0.0023 -0.0014 0.0008 -0.0597* -0.0124 YEAR YES YES YES YES YES YES SECTOR YES YES YES YES YES YES _cons 0.3180*** 0.1259*** 0.1264*** 0.6976** 1.9821** 1.4683* N 695 710 711 715 711 699 r2 0.0497 0.0521 0.0585 0.0114 0.061 0.0618 We observe that in the case of small companies, the effect of ESG activities on the variables analyzed is negative in most cases. A negative and significant effect is observed on ROE (-0.0008), ROA (-0.0005), growth (-0.0025), ROA adj (-0.0239) and ROE adj (-0.0232). This may mean that for small companies, taking into account the means they have, the implementation of these activities involves costs that are too high. The weight of SMEs in the set of companies is greater than that of large companies. These results are in line with the meta-analysis of Khan (2022) which explains the difficulty small businesses have in making this type of activity profitable. This implies that we can accept hypothesis 4.3. 4.4.4 Strategic and disclosure 91 In this section we will analyze whether companies use strategically the information from the stkaheolders in the design of reporting (Table 42) and how the level of disclosure influences it (Table 43). Table 42. Effect of considering stakeholder information for the design of the reporting Variable ROE ROA CFLOW GROWTH ROAadj ROEadj Infostakeholders 0.0068* 0.0038** 0.0024 -0.0028 -0.0269 -0.0447 logTA -0.0110** -0.0042*** -0.0034** -0.0196* 0.0968*** 0.0708* family 0.0103 0.0016 0.0080* 0.001 0.1758 -0.0492 Solvency -0.0540** 0.0256*** 0.0295*** -0.0636 -0.0517 0.4807** Growth 0.0004 -0.0006 0.0016 -0.0560* 0.0001 YEAR YES YES YES YES YES YES SECTOR YES YES YES YES YES YES _cons 0.2653*** 0.0929*** 0.1047*** 0.4259*** -0.0769 -0.1975 N 1013 1031 1032 1036 1029 1006 r2 0.0466 0.052 0.0635 0.0354 0.0298 0.032 We observe that the use of stakeholders in the design of the strategy has a significant and positive effect on ROE (0.0068) and ROA (0.0038). Therefore, using stakeholder information strategically in reporting design has a positive effect in performance, supporting H4.5. However, no significant effect was found on the other variables. This value is significant for companies as it is a fundamental guide when preparing their ESG reports. On the other hand, the fact of having an ESG committee within the companies has a significant and negative effect on ROE (-0.0293), while the fact of preparing reports in which ESG activities are disclosed has a significant and positive effect on the growth level (0.0839). It is striking that it is positive for companies to disclose this type of activity, but it is not positive to have a committee dedicated exclusively to ESG. This may be due to the fact that, apparently, maintaining a committee can be quite expensive and, therefore, companies are not compensated for this effort in the final results. Consequently, we can accept hypotheses 4.7 and reject hypotheses 4.6. Table 43. ESG commitee and ESG reporting Variable ROE ROA CFLOW GROWTH ROAadj ROEadj ESGcommittee -0.0293* -0.0033 -0.0097 0.0124 0.139 -0.1881 ESGreporting 0.0096 0.0061 0.0066 0.0839** -0.0888 0.0085 logTA -0.0105* -0.0041** -0.0035** -0.0254* 0.1237*** 0.1099** family 0.011 0.0039 0.0098** 0.0061 0.1361 -0.0643 Solvency -0.0561** 0.0236*** 0.0268*** -0.0809 -0.1673 0.2671 Growth 0.0001 -0.0009 0.0016 -0.0601** -0.0121 YEAR YES YES YES YES YES YES SECTOR YES YES YES YES YES YES _cons 0.2834*** 0.1043*** 0.1123*** 0.4971** -0.4447 -0.6657 N 898 913 915 916 912 894 r2 0.0498 0.0513 0.0676 0.0393 0.0334 0.0306 92 4.5. CONCLUSIONS In this paper, we have analyzed the role that CSR activities have in business performance, as well as the role that these types of actions have as tools to manage crisis situations. In addition, we have seen the performance impact of companies disclosing this type of activity and having an ESG committee. Having detected the measurement problem surrounding CSR, we developed an index that allows us to assess the level of implementation of these activities by a sample of Spanish companies and we observe that they improve performance. The first conclusion to take into account is that the results are affected by the method used. Therefore, the methodology used must be taken into account in future analyses. Moreover, it is important to distinguish the consequences of each of the ESG subdimensions. If we analyze the different dimensions and compare it with the global analysis, we see different effects. In fact, the overall effect is likely to be diffuse because it is compensated by the different dimensions of ESG or by the variation in size between companies. In addition, we can see how ESG is a tool that causes a higher level of resilience in the context that we are experiencing due to COVID-19. This is more notable in those companies that present a higher index of labor and social ESG. Finally, regarding the size of the companies, we see that it is more difficult for small companies to monetize ESG. This may be due to the costs involved in implementing this type of activity, to economies of scale or because they are less prepared to optimally exploit the efforts they make. This chapter has a number of limitations. Mainly it should be mentioned that it refers to a sample of Spanish companies, so we recommend future researchers to expand the sample and carry out a more international study to check if these effects are also fulfilled in other geographical areas, or if instead this is a variable to take into account. Regarding the implications of this study, we mainly have to comment on the fact that we have designed an index that allows the measurement of ESG to be standardized and therefore puts an end to the problem that so many researchers have commented on. 93 CONCLUSIONS 1. INTRODUCTION The twenty-first century has meant an important step forward in the recognition by companies of their broader social responsibilities and their integration in business strategies with the aim of creating shared value (Chandler, 2016; Latapí Agudelo et al., 2019). Firms have responded to the expectations and claims of a wide range of external and internal stakeholders in relation to business commitment with sustainable development through the adoption of socially responsible behaviors (Brammer et al., 2007), creating “win-win situations” (Porter & van der Linde, 1995) in which an adequate social and environmental performance provides competitive advantages for the company (Strautmanis, 2008; Madorran et al., 2016; García-Sánchez et al., 2020c). As part of the 2030 Agenda, the definition in 2015 of the SDGs gave companies a new role, involving them as key actors in the achievement of the SDGs (UN, 2015; Rosati & Faria, 2019). This new role is included within the overall framework of a company’s CSR activities, so both issues (SDGs and CSR) are inherently connected (Shayan et al., 2022). Therefore, like other CSR strategies, those activities aimed at achieving the SDGs can bring benefits to companies (García- Sánchez et al., 2020a). However, the attainment of such benefits requires that stakeholders recognize the companies’ efforts in relation to the sustainable development (Izzo et al., 2020). On the other hand, as Yamake and Kaneko (2021) showed, rising stakeholder awareness of the SDGs may favour the development of “pro-sustainable behaviors” by companies. Knowing what the involvement with the SDGs and CSR suppose for companies will be essential for stakeholders and will influence their behavior (Arendt and Brettel, 2010; García-Sánchez et al., 2020a). Accordingly, stakeholder engagement turns into critical for the achievement of the SDGs (Jun & Kim, 2021). With these premises, this research project has analyzed the determinants and results of CSR as a stakeholder engagement tool focusing on the aspects related to personal and behavioral factors related to CSR and their implications for business performance. 2. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS In this research project we aimed to answer four research questions related to the aforementioned objective. In this section we summarize the main results obtained throughout the work. As regards the first research question (How have the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs impacted academic research on business management and CSR), we carried out a bibliometric analysis from which we can conclude that we are in front of a “hot” research topic, with a remarkable growth in last years, which demonstrates the relevance and interest of this theme. In particular, researchers’ interest concentrates around the study of how business address the SDGs, the benefits arising from SDG engagement and SDG reporting. 94 The second research question (Under which conditions does CSR affect employees’ work-related attitudes?) was addressed through a meta-analysis The results show that some contextual factors moderate the impact of perceived CSR on work-related attitudes which may explained the mixed results obtained by prior researchers. Specifically, the fact that a company operates in countries with higher levels of social and economic development and a national culture characterized by a longterm orientation strengthens the impact of perceived CSR on OI, whereas if the company operates in cultural contexts characterized by high uncertainty avoidance or belongs to non-controversial industries, it diminishes the effect of perceived CSR on TI. Moreover, some employees’ personal attributes also moderate the relationship between perceived CSR and work-related attitudes. In this respect, the effect of perceived CSR on OC and TI is strengthened when employees occupy managerial positions, whereas the impact of perceived CSR on TI diminishes as the employees’ age increases. With regard to the third research question (What are the CEO’s idiosyncratic characteristics that affect SDG reporting as a stakeholder engagement tool), we can affirm that some personal attributes of the CEO influence the decisions they make regarding the level of disclosure of the SDGs. Specifically, companies with CEOs with a high level education, with local CEOs or with CEOs with a high level of narcissisism will disclose more SDG information. Finally, in answering the fourth research question (How is ESG performance, both globally and for each of its dimensions, associated with business performance and what circumstances affect this association?) we observe that there is great difficulty in measuring CSR activities and that the results obtained regarding the relationship between CSR performance and financial performance are affected by the used method as well as the considered ESG subdimension. In fact, it is likely that the overall effect of CSR performance on financial performance to be diffuse because it is compensated by the different dimensions of ESG. As a result, the relation between ESG subdimensions and financial performance is significative individually but not if we analyzed it globally. Additionally, we observed that ESG is a tool that favors a higher level of resilience in the context that we are experiencing due to COVID-19, particularly in those companies that present a higher index of labor and social performance. Furthermore, we found that it is more difficult for small companies to monetize ESG, which may be due to the costs involved in implementing this type of activities, to economies of scale or because they are less prepared to optimally exploit the efforts they make. 3. IMPLICATIONS OF THESE FINDINGS 3.1 Theoretical Taking into account the rise of this topic in the academic world, the results obtained in this chapter are relevant for literature. First of all, we observed that research on business contribution to the SDGs is not well structured, so our bibliometric analysis may contribute to provide a reference frame of the state-of-art of this research topic which can orientate researchers in the development of future studies. On the other hand, the second chapter integrates and extends prior results and provides a deeper understanding on how CSR affects employees’ work-related attitudes by documenting the effect of contextual factors and employees’ demographic attributes on such a relationship. Specifically, we show that the effect of perceived CSR on employees' work-related attitudes may vary due to the level of economic and social development and the national culture of the country where a company operates, the level of pollution of the industry to which it belongs as well as employees' age and position. Furthermore, we show that, although individually some variables do not have a significant 95 moderating effect, they have a significant effect in combination with other variables, which opens new research avenues. Thus, we contribute to explain prior mixed findings. Regarding the third research question, we contribute to the academic research extending the studies that analyze the impact of the CEO’s personal characteristics on CSR to, specifically, their effect on the level of disclosure of the SDGs. As far as we are aware, there is no study that has analyzed this issue before. Finally, after verifying the existing difficulties when measuring ESG, we have proposed the elaboration of an index considering each one of the dimensions of ESG and that allows measuring the level of ESG both in large companies and in SMEs. This puts an end to the problem that so many researchers have commented on. Additionally, we provide new evidence on the relationship between CSR performance and financial performance and the circumstances that affect it. 3.2 Practical This research’ findings also have some managerial and human resources implications. First of all, we confirm that CSR could be use a stakeholder engagement tool, specifically for employees. We showed the positive effect that perceived CSR has on employees, strengthening positive attitudes (OI and OC) and diminishing negative ones (TI), which contradicts the idea that the only source of motivation for employees are economic rewards. Thus, we show that the CSR role is not restricted to external stakeholder management but also extends to internal stakeholders’ behavior. Thus, investing resources into CSR initiatives not only is beneficial for the environment and the society but can also be used as a tool in human resources management to increase employees’ motivation and attract and retain talented workers. Secondly, we document the conditions under which the positive effect of CSR on employees’ work-related attitudes is stronger/weaker or even the opposite. Given that the positive impact of CSR in employees’ attitudes is not universal, knowing how CSR practices influence employees allows companies to configure pertinent human resource management policies. For example, CSR could be used to retain talented managers and younger employees, but its effect diminishes in the case of countries characterized by high avoidance uncertainty.Moreover, our results provide information about what idiosyncratic characteristics of the CEO influence in SDG reporting. In fact, companies that want to promote a higher level of SDG disclosure may take into account what characteristics the CEO must have for this to happen. As indicated above, CSR can improve corporate performance by boosting the link between employees and their company. Specifically, our results indicate that the labor ESG has a great impact on business profitability. Therefore, if companies carry out ESG activities aimed at employees, they will perceive it as something positive and it will influence their attitude within the company, increasing their motivation and leading to better performance. In addition, all those companies that get involved in an appropriate way with ESG activities will have a factor in favor of being more resilient in times of crisis. It is also noteworty that SMEs companies have more difficulties in monetizing the efforts derived from the implementation of CSR activities, so they must take this information into account to know to what extent they should be involved in this type of action. 4. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY Despite its implications, this chapter is subject to some limitations. Firstly, our bibliometric analysis only have included papers of the Scopus database as a source of data collection, but Web of Science or Google Scholar, should also be considered to expand the study. Moreover, other methodologies as Statement or SCImat could be employed. Furthermore, the number of studies included in the meta-analysis was small, especially for the analyses related to TI. 96 On the other hand, the study of the implications of the CEO’s attributes on SDG reporting was based on a small sample of companies, which may limit the generalizability of the results. The same problem occurs with the sample utilized to carry out the analysis of the relationship between CSR performance and financial performance. Additionally, it should be mentioned that both samples refer to Spanish companies and, therefore, the interpretation and implications of the results are limited to that context. 5. SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Considering the above limitations, some suggestions for future research may be suggested. First of all, the fact of differentiating various themes regarding the role that business have on the fulfillment of the 2030 Agenda can open new lines of research for all those academics who wish to delve deeper into each of the underlying themes related to business contribution to the SDGs. Moreover, future studies could complete the analysis by investigating how contextual factors and employees’ demographic features affect the relationship between different components of CSR and other workrelated attitudes and behaviors. Moreover, we suggest to future researchers to expand the sample and adopt an international focus to analyze the effect of CEO’s attributes on SDG reporting as well as the relationship between CSR performance and business performance. 97 LIST OF REFERENCES Abernethy, M. A., Jiang, L., & Kuang, Y. F. (2019). Can organizational identification mitigate the CEO horizon problem? Accounting, Organizations and Society, 78, 101056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2019.07.002 Achi, A., Adeola, O., & Achi, F. C. (2022). CSR and green process innovation as antecedents of micro, small, and medium enterprise performance: Moderating role of perceived environmental volatility. Journal of Business Research, 139, 771–781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.10.016 Acuti, D., Bellucci, M., & Manetti, G. (2020). Company disclosures concerning the resilience of cities from the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) perspective. Cities, 99, 102608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102608 Adeola, O., Gyimah, P., Appiah, K. O., & Lussier, R. N. (2021). Can critical success factors of small businesses in emerging markets advance UN Sustainable Development Goals? World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 17(1), 85–105. https://doi.org/10.1108/WJEMSD-09-2019-0072 Aibar-Guzmán, B., & Frías-Aceituno, J. V. (2021). Is it necessary to centralize power in the CEO to ensure environmental innovation?. Administrative sciences, 11(1), 27. Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE transactions on automatic control, 19(6), 716-723. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705 Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What We Know and Don’t Know About Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932–968. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311436079 Alazzani, A., Wan-Hussin, W. N., & Jones, M. (2019). Muslim CEO, women on boards and corporate responsibility reporting: Some evidence from Malaysia. Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research, 10(2), 274–296. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIABR-01- 2017-0002 Ali, S., Hussain, T., Zhang, G., Nurunnabi, M., & Li, B. (2018). The Implementation of Sustainable Development Goals in “BRICS” Countries. Sustainability, 10(7), 2513. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072513 Ali, S., Zhang, J., Usman, M., Khan, M. K., Khan, F. U., & Siddique, M. A. (2020). Do tournament incentives motivate chief executive officers to be socially responsible? Managerial Auditing Journal, 35(5), 597–619. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-05-2019-2288 Alipour, M., Ghanbari, M., Jamshidinavid, B., & Taherabadi, A. (2019). Does board independence moderate the relationship between environmental disclosure quality and performance? Evidence from static and dynamic panel data. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 19(3), 580–610. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-06-2018-0196 Allouche, J., & Laroche, P. (2005). A Meta-analytical investigation of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Revue de Gestion Des Ressources Humaines, 57, 18. 104 Ditlev-Simonsen, C.D. (2015). The Relationship Between Norwegian and Swedish Employees’ Perception of Corporate Social Responsibility and Affective Commitment. Business & Society, 54(2), 229–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650312439534 Donia, M. B. L., Ronen, S., Tetrault Sirsly, C.-A., & Bonaccio, S. (2019). CSR by Any Other Name? The Differential Impact of Substantive and Symbolic CSR Attributions on Employee Outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(2), 503–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551- 017-3673-5 Dube, K. (2021). Sustainable Development Goals Localisation in the Hospitality Sector in Botswana and Zimbabwe. Sustainability, 13(15), 8457. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158457 Dube, K., & Nhamo, G. (2021). Sustainable Development Goals localisation in the tourism sector: Lessons from Grootbos Private Nature Reserve, South Africa. GeoJournal, 86(5), 2191– 2208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-020-10182-8 Dutton, J.E. (1990). Keeping an eye on the mirror: the role of image and identity in organizational adaption: the case of the port authority of New York and New Jersey and the issue of homelessness. Academy of management journal, 34(3), 517-554 Egger, M., Smith, G.D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315(7109), 629-634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 Ejarque, A. T., & Campos, V. (2020). Assessing the Economy for the Common Good Measurement Theory Ability to Integrate the SDGs into MSMEs. Sustainability, 12(24), 10305. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410305 ElAlfy, A., Darwish, K. M., & Weber, O. (2020). Corporations and sustainable development goals communication on social media: Corporate social responsibility or just another buzzword? Sustainable Development, 28(5), 1418–1430. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2095 ElAlfy, A., Palaschuk, N., El-Bassiouny, D., Wilson, J., & Weber, O. (2020). Scoping the evolution of corporate social responsibility (CSR) research in the sustainable development goals (SDGs) era. Sustainability, 12(14), 5544. El-Haddadeh, R., Osmani, M., Hindi, N., & Fadlalla, A. (2021). Value creation for realising the sustainable development goals: Fostering organisational adoption of big data analytics. Journal of Business Research, 131, 402–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.066 Emma, G.-M., & Jennifer, M.-F. (2021). Is SDG reporting substantial or symbolic? An examination of controversial and environmentally sensitive industries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 298, 126781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126781 Endl, A., Tost, M., Hitch, M., Moser, P., & Feiel, S. (2021). Europe’s mining innovation trends and their contribution to the sustainable development goals: Blind spots and strong points. Resources Policy, 74, 101440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.101440 Erin, O. A., & Bamigboye, O. A. (2021). Evaluation and analysis of SDG reporting: Evidence from Africa. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 18(3), 369–396. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAOC-02-2020-0025 Escher, I., & Brzustewicz, P. (2020). Inter-Organizational Collaboration on Projects Supporting Sustainable Development Goals: The Company Perspective. Sustainability, 12(12), 4969. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124969 Esteban, V.A., Villardón, M.P.G., & Sanchez, I.M.G. (2017). Cultural values on CSR patterns and evolution: A study from the biplot representation. Ecological indicators, 81, 18-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.05.051 Famiyeh, S. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and firm’s performance: Empirical evidence. Social Responsibility Journal, 13(2), 390–406. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-04-2016-0049 105 Fanasch, P. (2019). Survival of the fittest: The impact of eco-certification and reputation on firm performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(4), 611–628. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2268 Farber, V., & Charles, V. (2013). Is the perception of CSR country bound? A CSR based reputation study of Spanish companies in Latin America. ESIC Market, 44(2). Farooq, O., Payaud, M., Merunka, D., & Valette-Florence, P. (2014). The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Organizational Commitment: Exploring Multiple Mediation Mechanisms. Journal of Business Ethics, 125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1928-3 Fei, W., Opoku, A., Agyekum, K., Oppon, J. A., Ahmed, V., Chen, C., & Lok, K. L. (2021). The Critical Role of the Construction Industry in Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Delivering Projects for the Common Good. Sustainability, 13(16), 9112. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169112 Feng, C. M., Park, A., Pitt, L., Kietzmann, J., & Northey, G. (2021). Artificial intelligence in marketing: A bibliographic perspective. Australasian Marketing Journal, 29(3), 252–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.07.006 Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S., & Ruiz-Blanco, S. (2014). Women on Boards: Do They Affect Sustainability Reporting? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21(6), 351–364. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1329 Ferreira, P., & Real de Oliveira, E. (2014). Does corporate social responsibility impact on employee engagement? Journal of Workplace Learning, 26(3/4), 232–247. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-09-2013-0070 Fleming, A., Wise, R. M., Hansen, H., & Sams, L. (2017). The sustainable development goals: A case study. Marine Policy, 86, 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.09.019 Fonseca, L., & Carvalho, F. (2019). The Reporting of SDGs by Quality, Environmental, and Occupational Health and Safety-Certified Organizations. Sustainability, 11(20), 5797. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205797 Francis, R. M., & Nair, V. (2020). Tourism and the sustainable development goals in the Abaco cays: Pre-hurricane Dorian in the Bahamas. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 12(3), 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1108/WHATT-02-2020-0007 Franco-Riquelme, J. N., & Rubalcaba, L. (2021). Innovation and SDGs through Social Media Analysis: Messages from FinTech Firms. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(3), 165. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7030165 Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Pitman, Boston) Friske, W., Nikolov, A. N., & Hoang, P. (2020). CSR reporting practices: An integrative model and analysis. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 28(2), 138–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2019.1690397 Fu, H., Ye, B.H., & Law, R. (2014). You do well and I do well? The behavioral consequences of corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 40, 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.03.004 Furlotti, K., Mazza, T., Tibiletti, V., & Triani, S. (2019). Women in top positions on boards of directors: Gender policies disclosed in Italian sustainability reporting. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(1), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1657 Galant, A., & Cadez, S. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance relationship: A review of measurement approaches. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 30(1), 676–693. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2017.1313122 Gallardo-Vázquez, D., Hourneaux Junior, F., da Silva Gabriel, M. L. D., & Valdez-Juárez, L. E. (2021). On Earth as It Is in Heaven: Proxy Measurements to Assess Sustainable 106 Development Goals at the Company Level through CSR Indicators. Sustainability, 13(2), 914. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020914 Gallardo-Vázquez, D., Sánchez-Hernández, M. I., & Corchuelo-Martinez-Azua, M. B. (2013). Validación de un instrumento de medida para la relación entre la orientación a la responsabilidad social corporativa y otras variables estratégicas de la empresa. Revista de Contabilidad, 16(1), 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1138-4891(13)70002-5 Gallardo-Vázquez, D., Valdez-Juárez, L. E., & Castuera-Díaz, Á. M. (2019). Corporate Social Responsibility as an Antecedent of Innovation, Reputation, Performance, and Competitive Success: A Multiple Mediation Analysis. Sustainability, 11(20), 5614. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205614 Gallego-Sosa, C., Gutiérrez-Fernández, M., Fernández-Torres, Y., & Nevado-Gil, M. T. (2021). Corporate Social Responsibility in the European Banking Sector: Commitment to the 2030 Agenda and Its Relationship with Gender Diversity. Sustainability, 13(4), 1731. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041731 Galleli, B., Semprebon, E., Santos, J. A. R. dos, Teles, N. E. B., Freitas-Martins, M. S. de, & Onevetch, R. T. da S. (2021). Institutional Pressures, Sustainable Development Goals and COVID-19: How Are Organisations Engaging? Sustainability, 13(21), 12330. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132112330 Gambetta, N., Azcárate-Llanes, F., Sierra-García, L., & García-Benau, M. A. (2021). Financial Institutions’ Risk Profile and Contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability, 13(14), 7738. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147738 García-Sánchez, I. M. (2021). Corporate social reporting and assurance: The state of the art: Información social corporativa y aseguramiento: El estado de la cuestión. Revista de Contabilidad-Spanish Accounting Review, 24(2), 241-269. García-Sánchez, I.-M., Aibar-Guzmán, B., Aibar-Guzmán, C., & Azevedo, T.-C. (2020). CEO ability and sustainability disclosures: The mediating effect of corporate social responsibility performance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(4), 1565–1577. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1905 García-Sánchez, I.-M., Aibar-Guzmán, B., Aibar-Guzmán, C., & Rodríguez-Ariza, L. (2020). “Sell” recommendations by analysts in response to business communication strategies concerning the Sustainable Development Goals and the SDG compass. Journal of Cleaner Production, 255, 120194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120194 García-Sánchez, I.-M., Aibar-Guzmán, B., Aibar-Guzmán, C., & Somohano-Rodríguez, F.-M. (2021). The drivers of the integration of the sustainable development goals into the nonfinancial information system: Individual and joint analysis of their influence. Sustainable Development, n/a(n/a). https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2246 García-Sánchez, I. M., Aibar-Guzmán, C., & Aibar-Guzmán, B. (2020). The effect of institutional ownership and ownership dispersion on eco-innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 158, 120173. García‐Sánchez, I. M., Aibar‐Guzmán, C., Núñez‐Torrado, M., & Aibar‐Guzmán, B. (2022). Are institutional investors “in love” with the sustainable development goals? Understanding the idyll in the case of governments and pension funds. Sustainable Development. García-Sánchez, I.-M., Amor-Esteban, V., & Galindo-Álvarez, D. (2020). Communication Strategies for the 2030 Agenda Commitments: A Multivariate Approach. Sustainability, 12(24), 10554. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410554 García-Sánchez, I. M., Aibar-Guzmán, C., Serrano-Valdecillos, C., & Aibar-Guzmán, B. (2022). Analysis of the Dialogue with Stakeholders by the IBEX 35 Companies. Sustainability, 14(3), 1913. 107 Garcia-Sanchez, I.-M., Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B., & Frias-Aceituno, J.-V. (2016). Impact of the Institutional Macro Context on the Voluntary Disclosure of CSR Information. Long Range Planning, 49(1), 15–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2015.02.004 García-Sánchez, I.-M., Hussain, N., & Martínez-Ferrero, J. (2019). An empirical analysis of the complementarities and substitutions between effects of ceo ability and corporate governance on socially responsible performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 215, 1288–1300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.130 García‐Sánchez, I. M., & Martínez‐Ferrero, J. (2019). Chief executive officer ability, corporate social responsibility, and financial performance: The moderating role of the environment. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(4), 542-555. García-Sánchez, I.-M., Rodríguez-Ariza, L., Aibar-Guzmán, B., & Aibar-Guzmán, C. (2020). Do institutional investors drive corporate transparency regarding business contribution to the sustainable development goals? Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(5), 2019–2036. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2485 Garrido‐Ruso, M., & Aibar‐Guzmán, B. (2022). The moderating effect of contextual factors and employees' demographic features on the relationship between CSR and work‐related attitudes: A meta‐analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. Gerged, A. M., & Almontaser, T. (2021). Corporate adoption of SDG reporting in a non-enabling institutional environment: Insights from Libyan oil industries. Resources Policy, 74, 102240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102240 Ghosh, S., & Rajan, J. (2019). The business case for SDGs: An analysis of inclusive business models in emerging economies. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 26(4), 344–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2019.1591539 Glass, C., Cook, A., & Ingersoll, A. R. (2016). Do women leaders promote sustainability? Analyzing the effect of corporate governance composition on environmental performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 25(7), 495-511. Glavas, A., & Kelley, K. (2014). The Effects of Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility on Employee Attitudes. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(2), 165–202. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq20143206 Goyal, S., Agrawal, A., & Sergi, B. S. (2020). Social entrepreneurship for scalable solutions addressing sustainable development goals (SDGs) at BoP in India. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 16(3/4), 509–529. https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-07-2020-1992 Graafland, J. (2018). Does Corporate Social Responsibility Put Reputation at Risk by Inviting Activist Targeting? An Empirical Test among European SMEs. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1422 Graafland, J., & Smid, H. (2019). Decoupling among CSR policies, programs, and impacts: An empirical study. Business & Society, 58(2), 231-267. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650316647951 Greenland S, O’Rourke K. Meta-Analysis. Modern Epidemiology. 3rd ed. Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL, editors. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008. pp. 652–682 Greenwood, M. (2007). Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 315-327. Griffeth, R.W., Hom, P.W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents and Correlates of Employee Turnover: Update, Moderator Tests, and Research Implications for the Next 108 Millennium. Journal of Management, 26(3), 463–488. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600305 Gunawan, J., Permatasari, P., & Tilt, C. (2020). Sustainable development goal disclosures: Do they support responsible consumption and production? Journal of Cleaner Production, 246, 118989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118989 Gunawan, J., & SeTin. (2018). The development of corporate social responsibility in accounting research: Evidence from Indonesia. Social Responsibility Journal, 15(5), 671–688. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-03-2018-0076 Günzel-Jensen, F., Siebold, N., Kroeger, A., & Korsgaard, S. (2020). Do the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals matter for social entrepreneurial ventures? A bottom-up perspective. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 13, e00162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2020.e00162 Gupta, K., Crilly, D., & Greckhamer, T. (2020). Stakeholder engagement strategies, national institutions, and firm performance: A configurational perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 41, 1869–1900. Gupta, M. (2017). Corporate Social Responsibility, Employee–Company Identification, and Organizational Commitment: Mediation by Employee Engagement. Current Psychology, 36(1), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-015-9389-8 Gutberlet, J. (2021). Grassroots waste picker organizations addressing the UN sustainable development goals. World Development, 138, 105195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105195 Halme, M., Rintamäki, J., Knudsen, J. S., Lankoski, L., & Kuisma, M. (2020). When Is There a Sustainability Case for CSR? Pathways to Environmental and Social Performance Improvements. Business & Society, 59(6), 1181–1227. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650318755648 Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of Its Top Managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1984.4277628 Hamann, R., Smith, J., Tashman, P., & Marshall, R. S. (2017). Why Do SMEs Go Green? An Analysis of Wine Firms in South Africa. Business & Society, 56(1), 23–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650315575106 Hang, Y., Sarfraz, M., Khalid, R., Ozturk, I., & Tariq, J. (2022). Does corporate social responsibility and green product innovation boost organizational performance? A moderated mediation model of competitive advantage and green trust. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 0(0), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2026243 Hansen, S.D., Dunford, B.B., Boss, A.D., Boss, R.W., & Angermeier, I. (2011). Corporate Social Responsibility and the Benefits of Employee Trust: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0903-0 Haywood, L. K., & Boihang, M. (2021). Business and the SDGs: Examining the early disclosure of the SDGs in annual reports. Development Southern Africa, 38(2), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2020.1818548 Hegde, S. P., & Mishra, D. R. (2019). Married CEOs and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Corporate Finance, 58, 226–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2019.05.003 Hepner, J., Chandon, J.-L., & Bakardzhieva, D. (2020). Competitive advantage from marketing the SDGs: A luxury perspective. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 39(2), 284–299. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-07-2018-0298 Herrera Madueño, J., Larrán Jorge, M., Martínez Conesa, I., & Martínez-Martínez, D. (2016). Relationship between corporate social responsibility and competitive performance in 109 Spanish SMEs: Empirical evidence from a stakeholders’ perspective. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 19(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2015.06.002 Hill, J. (2001). Thinking about a more sustainable business—An Indicators approach. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 8(1), 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1066-7938(00)00097-X Ho, J., Lu, C., & Lucianetti, L. (2021). Does engaging in corporate social responsibility activities influence firm performance? The moderating effects of risk preferences and performance measurement systems. Management Decision. 59(13), 15–37. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD- 07-2020-0925 Hofman, P.S., & Newman, A. (2014). The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on organizational commitment and the moderating role of collectivism and masculinity: Evidence from China. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(5), 631–652. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.792861 Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture and Organizations. International Studies of Management & Organization, 10(4), 15–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.1980.11656300 Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1(2), 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01733682 Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Recent Consequences: Using Dimension Scores in Theory and Research. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 1(1), 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/147059580111002 Horne, J., Recker, M., Michelfelder, I., Jay, J., & Kratzer, J. (2020). Exploring entrepreneurship related to the sustainable development goals—Mapping new venture activities with semiautomated content analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 242, 118052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118052 Høvring, C.M., Andersen, S.E., & Nielsen, A.E. (2018). Discursive tensions in CSR multistakeholder dialogue: A Foucauldian perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 152(3), 627- 645. Huang, S. K. (2013). The impact of CEO characteristics on corporate sustainable development. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20(4), 234- 244. Hunter, J.E., & Schmidt, F.L. (2004). Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings. SAGE. Ike, M., Donovan, J. D., Topple, C., & Masli, E. K. (2019). The process of selecting and prioritising corporate sustainability issues: Insights for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 236, 117661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117661 Ilyas, S., Hu, Z., & Wiwattanakornwong, K. (2020). Unleashing the role of top management and government support in green supply chain management and sustainable development goals. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(8), 8210–8223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-07268-3 Imaz, O., & Eizagirre, A. (2020). Responsible Innovation for Sustainable Development Goals in Business: An Agenda for Cooperative Firms. Sustainability, 12(17), 6948. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176948 Ionașcu, E., Mironiuc, M., Anghel, I., & Huian, M. C. (2020). The Involvement of Real Estate Companies in Sustainable Development—An Analysis from the SDGs Reporting Perspective. Sustainability, 12(3), 798. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030798 Islam, T., Ahmed, I., Ali, G., & Sadiq, T. (2016). Behavioral and psychological consequences of corporate social responsibility: Need of the time. Social Responsibility Journal, 12(2), 307– 320. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-04-2015-0053 110 Ismail, A. M., & Latiff, I. H. M. (2019). Board diversity and corporate sustainability practices: Evidence on environmental, social and governance (ESG) reporting. International Journal of Financial Research, 10(3), 31-50. Iwata, H., & Okada, K. (2011). How does environmental performance affect financial performance? Evidence from Japanese manufacturing firms. Ecological Economics, 70(9), 1691–1700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.05.010 Izzo, M. F., Ciaburri, M., & Tiscini, R. (2020a). The Challenge of Sustainable Development Goal Reporting: The First Evidence from Italian Listed Companies. Sustainability, 12(8), 3494. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083494 Izzo, M. F., Dello Strologo, A., & Granà, F. (2020). Learning from the Best: New Challenges and Trends in IR Reporters’ Disclosure and the Role of SDGs. Sustainability, 12(14), 5545. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145545 Jahanshahi, A. A., & Brem, A. (2017). Sustainability in SMEs: Top Management Teams Behavioral Integration as Source of Innovativeness. Sustainability, 9(10), 1899. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101899 Jan, A., Mata, M. N., Albinsson, P. A., Martins, J. M., Hassan, R. B., & Mata, P. N. (2021). Alignment of Islamic Banking Sustainability Indicators with Sustainable Development Goals: Policy Recommendations for Addressing the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability, 13(5), 2607. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052607 Javeed, A., Khan, M. Y., Rehman, M., & Khurshid, A. (2021). Tracking sustainable development goals – a case study of Pakistan. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-04-2020- 0052 Javeed, S. A., & Lefen, L. (2019). An Analysis of Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Performance with Moderating Effects of CEO Power and Ownership Structure: A Case Study of the Manufacturing Sector of Pakistan. Sustainability, 11(1), 248. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010248 Jeong, N., & Kim, N. (2019). The effects of political orientation on corporate social (ir)responsibility. Management Decision, 58(2), 255–266. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-06- 2019-0713 Jenkins, H., & Obara, L. (2006, September). Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in the mining industry–the risk of community dependency. In Corporate Responsibility Research Conference, Dublin (pp. 4-5). Jha, M. K., & Rangarajan, K. (2020). The approach of Indian corporates towards sustainable development: An exploration using sustainable development goals based model. Sustainable Development, 28(5), 1019–1032. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2053 Ji, S.-H., Yoon, K.-C., Park, J., An, S.-B., & Oh, H.-M. (2019). The Relationship between CEO Governance and Social Responsibility of Service Firms. Sustainability, 11(18), 4942. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184942 Jimenez, D., Franco, I. B., & Smith, T. (2021). A Review of Corporate Purpose: An Approach to Actioning the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Sustainability, 13(7), 3899. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073899 Johnsson, F., Karlsson, I., Rootzén, J., Ahlbäck, A., & Gustavsson, M. (2020). The framing of a sustainable development goals assessment in decarbonizing the construction industry – Avoiding “Greenwashing”. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 131, 110029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110029 111 Jones, P., & Comfort, D. (2020). The UK’s largest volume housebuilders and the sustainable development goals. Property Management, 39(1), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1108/PM-06- 2020-0036 Jones, P., Comfort, D., & Hillier, D. (2018). The sustainable development goals and retailing. World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 14(5), 608– 618. https://doi.org/10.1504/WREMSD.2018.094335 Jones, T. M., Harrison, J. S., & Felps, W. (2018). How applying instrumental stakeholder theory can provide sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 43, 371– 391 Jonsdottir, G. E., Sigurjonsson, T. O., Alavi, A. R., & Mitchell, J. (2021). Applying Responsible Ownership to Advance SDGs and the ESG Framework, Resulting in the Issuance of Green Bonds. Sustainability, 13(13), 7331. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137331 Juarez, L. E. V. (2017). Corporate Social Responsibility: Its Effects on SMEs. Journal of Management and Sustainability, 7, 75. Jung, H.-J., & Ali, M. (2017). Corporate Social Responsibility, Organizational Justice and Positive Employee Attitudes: In the Context of Korean Employment Relations. Sustainability, 9(11), 1992. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9111992 Jun, H., & Kim, M. (2021). From Stakeholder Communication to Engagement for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A Case Study of LG Electronics. Sustainability, 13(15), 8624. Kacperczyk, A. (2009). With greater power comes greater responsibility? Takeover protection and corporate attention to stakeholders. Strategic Management Journal, 30(3), 261-285. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.733 Kader, M. A. R. A., Mohezar, S., Yunus, N. K. M., Ali, R., & Nazri, M. (2021). Investigating the Moderating Effect of Marketing Capability on the Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Practice and Corporate Reputation in Small Medium Enterprises Food Operators. International Journal of Business and Society, 22(3), 1469–1486. https://doi.org/10.33736/ijbs.4315.2021 Kandler Rodríguez, J. M. (2020). Exploring the applicability of sustainable development goals in Costa Rica: Case examples from Mastatal and Conchal. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 12(5), 597–607. https://doi.org/10.1108/WHATT-06-2020-0044 Kang, K.H., Lee, S., & Yoo, C. (2016). The effect of national culture on corporate social responsibility in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(8), 1728–1758. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-08-2014-0415 Kazemikhasragh, A., Cicchiello, A. F., & Pietronudo, M. C. (2021). Factors influencing the adoption of SDG reporting by large African and Asian companies. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 20(1), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1386/tmsd_00034_1 Kc, B., Dhungana, A., & Dangi, T. B. (2021). Tourism and the sustainable development goals: Stakeholders’ perspectives from Nepal. Tourism Management Perspectives, 38, 100822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2021.100822 Khaled, R., Ali, H., & Mohamed, E. K. A. (2021). The Sustainable Development Goals and corporate sustainability performance: Mapping, extent and determinants. Journal of Cleaner Production, 311, 127599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127599 Khaleel, M., Chelliah, S., Rauf, S., & Jamil, M. (2017). Impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on attitudes and behaviors of pharmacists working in MNCs. Humanomics, 33(4), 453–469. https://doi.org/10.1108/H-10-2016-0080 112 Khalique, F., Madan, P., Puri, G., & Parimoo, D. (2021). Incorporating SDG 8 for Decent Work Practices: A study of MNC Subsidiaries in India. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 15(5), 99–114. https://doi.org/10.14453/aabfj.v15i5. Khan, P. A., Johl, S. K., & Johl, S. K. (2021). Does adoption of ISO 56002-2019 and green innovation reporting enhance the firm sustainable development goal performance? An emerging paradigm. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(7), 2922–2936. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2779 Khan, S. N. (2018). Making sense of the black box: An empirical analysis investigating strategic cognition of CSR strategists in a transitional market. Journal of Cleaner Production, 196, 916–926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.075 Khan, T. M., Gang, B., Fareed, Z., & Yasmeen, R. (2020). The impact of CEO tenure on corporate social and environmental performance: An emerging country’s analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(16), 19314–19326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020- 08468-y Khaskheli, A., Jiang, Y., Raza, S. A., Qureshi, M. A., Khan, K. A., & Salam, J. (2020). Do CSR activities increase organizational citizenship behavior among employees? Mediating role of affective commitment and job satisfaction. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(6), 2941–2955. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2013 Khattak, M. S., Anwar, M., & Clauß, T. (2021). The Role of Entrepreneurial Finance in Corporate Social Responsibility and New Venture Performance in an Emerging Market. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 30(2), 336–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/09713557211025655 Kim, B., Lee, S., & Kang, K.H. (2018). The moderating role of CEO narcissism on the relationship between uncertainty avoidance and CSR. Tourism Management, 67, 203-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.01.018 Kim, H.L., Rhou, Y., Uysal, M., & Kwon, N. (2017). An examination of the links between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and its internal consequences. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 61, 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.10.011 Kim, H.-R., Lee, M., Lee, H.-T., & Kim, N.-M. (2010). Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee–Company Identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(4), 557–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0440-2 Kim, J., Song, H.J., & Lee, C.-K. (2016). Effects of corporate social responsibility and internal marketing on organizational commitment and turnover intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 55, 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.02.007 Klimkiewicz, K., & Oltra, V. (2017). Does CSR Enhance Employer Attractiveness? The Role of Millennial Job Seekers’ Attitudes: CSR-based employer attractiveness and Millennials’ attitudes. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 24(5), 449–463. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1419 Ko, S.-H., Moon, T.-W., & Hur, W.-M. (2018). Bridging Service Employees’ Perceptions of CSR and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Moderated Mediation Effects of Personal Traits. Current Psychology, 37(4), 816–831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9565-0 Kowalczyk, R., & Kucharska, W. (2020). Corporate social responsibility practices incomes and outcomes: Stakeholders’ pressure, culture, employee commitment, corporate reputation, and brand performance. A Polish–German cross-country study. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2), 595–615. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1823 Krantz, V., & Gustafsson, S. (2021). Localizing the sustainable development goals through an integrated approach in municipalities: Early experiences from a Swedish forerunner. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 64(14), 2641–2660. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2021.1877642 113 Kucharska, W., & Kowalczyk, R. (2019). How to achieve sustainability?—Employee’s point of view on company’s culture and CSR practice. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(2), 453–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1696 Kujala, J., Sachs, S., Leinonen, H., Heikkinen, A., & Laude, D. (2022). Stakeholder engagement: Past, present, and future. Business & Society, 00076503211066595. Kumi, E., Yeboah, T., & Kumi, Y. A. (2020). Private sector participation in advancing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Ghana: Experiences from the mining and telecommunications sectors. The Extractive Industries and Society, 7(1), 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2019.12.008 Kundu, S.C., & Gahlawat, N. (2016). Effects of socially responsible HR practices on employees’ work attitudes. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 16(3–4), 140–160. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJHRDM.2016.078194 Kuzey, C., Uyar, A., Nizaeva, M., & Karaman, A. S. (2021). CSR performance and firm performance in the tourism, healthcare, and financial sectors: Do metrics and CSR committees matter? Journal of Cleaner Production, 319, 128802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128802 Lahouel, B. B., Zaied, Y. B., Song, Y., & Yang, G. (2021). Corporate social performance and financial performance relationship: A data envelopment analysis approach without explicit input. Finance Research Letters, 39, 101656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101656 Lane, A. B., & Devin, B. (2018). Operationalizing stakeholder engagement in CSR: A process approach. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(3), 267-280. Lassala, C., Orero-Blat, M., & Ribeiro-Navarrete, S. (2021). The financial performance of listed companies in pursuit of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Economic Research- Ekonomska Istraživanja, 34(1), 427–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2021.1877167 Latapí Agudelo, M. A., Jóhannsdóttir, L., & Davídsdóttir, B. (2019). A literature review of the history and evolution of corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 4(1), 1-23. Lechuga Sancho, M. P., Martínez-Martínez, D., Larran Jorge, M., & Herrera Madueño, J. (2018). Understanding the link between socially responsible human resource management and competitive performance in SMEs. Personnel Review, 47(6), 1211–1243. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-05-2017-0165 Lee, E.-S., Park, T.-Y., & Koo, B. (2015). Identifying Organizational Identification as a Basis for Attitudes and Behaviors: A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychological Bulletin, 141. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000012 Lee, L., & Chen, L.-F. (2018). Boosting employee retention through CSR: A configurational analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(5), 948–960. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1511 Lee, R., & Kim, J. (2021). Developing a Social Index for Measuring the Public Opinion Regarding the Attainment of Sustainable Development Goals. Social Indicators Research, 156(1), 201– 221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-021-02643-5 Lewis, B. W., Walls, J. L., & Dowell, G. W. S. (2014). Difference in degrees: CEO characteristics and firm environmental disclosure. Strategic Management Journal, 35(5), 712–722. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2127 Li, D., Lin, H., & Yang, Y. (2016). Does the stakeholders – corporate social responsibility (CSR) relationship exist in emerging countries? Evidence from China. Social Responsibility Journal, 12(1), 147–166. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-01-2015-0018 120 Pizzi, S., Caputo, A., Corvino, A., & Venturelli, A. (2020). Management research and the UN sustainable development goals (SDGs): A bibliometric investigation and systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 276, 124033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124033 Pizzi, S., Rosati, F., & Venturelli, A. (2021). The determinants of business contribution to the 2030 Agenda: Introducing the SDG Reporting Score. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(1), 404–421. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2628 Poddar, A., Narula, S. A., & Zutshi, A. (2019). A study of corporate social responsibility practices of the top Bombay Stock Exchange 500 companies in India and their alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(6), 1184–1205. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1741 Porter, M., van der Linde, C., 1995. Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9, 97–118. Prado-Lorenzo, J.-M., Gallego-Álvarez, I., García-Sánchez, I.-M., & Rodríguez-Domínguez, L. (2008). Social responsibility in Spain: Practices and motivations in firms. Management Decision, 46(8), 1247–1271. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740810901417 Qammar, R. (2012). Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Corporate Financial Performance (CFP): Literature review approach. Finance Management, 46, 8404– 8409. Quazi, A., & Richardson, A. (2012). Sources of variation in linking corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Social Responsibility Journal, 8(2), 242–256. https://doi.org/10.1108/17471111211234860 Quéré, B. P., Nouyrigat, G., & Baker, C. R. (2018). A Bi-Directional Examination of the Relationship Between Corporate Social Responsibility Ratings and Company Financial Performance in the European Context. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(3), 527–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2998-1 Racowski, I., & Neto, J. A. (2021). Survey of the wheat and derivatives production chain regarding the 2030 Agenda and the SDG. Sustainability in Debate, 12(1), 59–100. https://doi.org/10.18472/SustDeb.v12n1.2021.36022 Raiden, A., & King, A. (2021). Social value, organisational learning, and the sustainable development goals in the built environment. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 172, 105663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105663 Rallapalli, K.C., Vitell, S.J., Wiebe, F.A., & Barnes, J.H. (1994). Consumer ethical beliefs and personality traits: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(7), 487-495. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00881294 Rashid, A., Shams, S., Bose, S., & Khan, H. (2020). CEO power and corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure: Does stakeholder influence matter? Managerial Auditing Journal, 35(9), 1279–1312. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-11-2019-2463 Raub, S. P., & Martin-Rios, C. (2019). “Think sustainable, act local” – a stakeholder-filter-model for translating SDGs into sustainability initiatives with local impact. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31(6), 2428–2447. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-06-2018-0453 Raza, A., Ilyas, M. I., Rauf, R., & Qamar, R. (2012). Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Corporate Financial Performance (CFP): Literature review approach. 7. Razzaq, S., Ahmad Maisam Najafizada, S., Sheel Acharya, S., Ellepola, Y., Chaudhry, K., Tabassum, R., ... & Kunwal, N. (2020). National Level Preparedness for Implementing the Health‐related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Seven South Asian Countries: 121 Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka. Global Policy, 11(1), 191-201. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12753 Redman, A. (2018). Harnessing the Sustainable Development Goals for businesses: A progressive framework for action. Business Strategy & Development, 1(4), 230–243. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.33 Revelli, C., & Viviani, J.L. (2015). Financial performance of socially responsible investing (SRI): what have we learned? A meta‐analysis. Business Ethics: A European Review, 24(2), 158- 185. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12076 Rivière-Giordano, G., Giordano-Spring, S., & Cho, C. H. (2018). Does the level of assurance statement on environmental disclosure affect investor assessment? An experimental study. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 9(3), 336–360. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-03-2018-0054 Roberts, J. A. (1991). Development of a profile of the socially responsible consumer for the 1990s and its marketing management and public policy implications [Ph.D.]. https://www.proquest.com/docview/303928239/abstract/7840C71BC7FD4B7DPQ/1 Rodenburg, K., De Silva, V., & Christensen Hughes, J. (2021). SDGs: A Responsible Research Assessment Tool toward Impactful Business Research. Sustainability, 13(24), 14019. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132414019 Rodriguez-Fernandez, M. (2016). Social responsibility and financial performance: The role of good corporate governance. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 19(2), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2015.08.001 Rosati, F., & Faria, L. G. D. (2019). Business contribution to the Sustainable Development Agenda: Organizational factors related to early adoption of SDG reporting. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(3), 588–597. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1705 Rose, M. (2005). Do rising levels of qualification alter work ethic, work orientation and organizational commitment for the worse? Evidence from the UK, 1985–2001. Journal of Education and Work, 18(2), 131-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080500085885 Rupp, D.E., & Mallory, D.B. (2015). Corporate social responsibility: Psychological, person-centric, and progressing. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav., 2(1), 211-236. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111505 Russell, E., Lee, J., & Clift, R. (2018). Can the SDGs Provide a Basis for Supply Chain Decisions in the Construction Sector? Sustainability, 10(3), 629. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030629 Rygh, A., Chiarapini, E., & Segovia, M. V. (2021). How can international business research contribute towards the sustainable development goals? Critical Perspectives on International Business, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/cpoib-08- 2020-0123 Saadaoui, K., & Soobaroyen, T. (2017). An analysis of the methodologies adopted by CSR rating agencies. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 9(1), 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-06-2016-0031 Sachs, J. D., & Sachs, L. E. (2021). Business alignment for the “Decade of Action”. Journal of International Business Policy, 4(1), 22-27. Salam, R., Damayanti, C. R., Sandi, K., Akib, H., & Tenri Awaru, A. O. (2020). Corporate Social Responsibility Versus Financial Performance:Critical Review Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). The 3rd Annual International Conference on Public and Business Administration (AICoBPA 2020), 191, 238–242. 122 Santos, M. J., & Silva Bastos, C. (2020). The adoption of sustainable development goals by large Portuguese companies. Social Responsibility Journal, 17(8), 1079–1099. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-07-2018-0184 Sardianou, E., Stauropoulou, A., Evangelinos, K., & Nikolaou, I. (2021). A materiality analysis framework to assess sustainable development goals of banking sector through sustainability reports. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27, 1775–1793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.04.020 Sarkar, S., & Searcy, C. (2016). Zeitgeist or chameleon? A quantitative analysis of CSR definitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 1423-1435. Saz-Gil, M. I., Cosenza, J. P., Zardoya-Alegría, A., & Gil-Lacruz, A. I. (2020). Exploring Corporate Social Responsibility under the Background of Sustainable Development Goals: A Proposal to Corporate Volunteering. Sustainability, 12(12), 4811. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124811 Scheyvens, R., Banks, G., & Hughes, E. (2016). The Private Sector and the SDGs: The Need to Move Beyond ‘Business as Usual’. Sustainable Development, 24(6), 371–382. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1623 Scheyvens, R., Carr, A., Movono, A., Hughes, E., Higgins-Desbiolles, F., & Mika, J. P. (2021). Indigenous tourism and the sustainable development goals. Annals of Tourism Research, 90, 103260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2021.103260 Scheyvens, R., & Hughes, E. (2019). Can tourism help to “end poverty in all its forms everywhere”? The challenge of tourism addressing SDG1. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(7), 1061–1079. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1551404 Sciandra, A., Surian, A., & Finos, L. (2021). Supervised Machine Learning Methods to Disclose Action and Information in “U.N. 2030 Agenda” Social Media Data. Social Indicators Research, 156(2), 689–699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02523-4 SDG Compass – A Guide for Business Action to Advance the Sustainable Development Goals. (n.d.). Retrieved 7 June 2022, from https://sdgcompass.org/ Seles, B. M. R. P., Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A. B., Jabbour, C. J. C., Latan, H., & Roubaud, D. (2019). Do Environmental Practices Improve Business Performance Even in an Economic Crisis? Extending the Win-Win Perspective. Ecological Economics, 163, 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.04.013 Shahzadi, G., Qadeer, F., John, A., & Jia, F. (2019). CSR and identification: The contingencies of employees’ personal traits and desire. Social Responsibility Journal, 16(8), 1239–1251. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-04-2018-0090 Sharabati, A.-A. A. (2018). Effect of corporate social responsibility on Jordan pharmaceutical industry’s business performance. Social Responsibility Journal, 14(3), 566–583. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-12-2016-0221 Shayan, N.F., Mohabbati-Kalejahi, N., Alavi, S., & Zahed, M. A. (2022). Sustainable development goals (SDGs) as a framework for corporate social responsibility (CSR). Sustainability, 14(3), 1222. Shen, J., Dumont, J., & Deng, X. (2018). Employees’ Perceptions of Green HRM and Non-Green Employee Work Outcomes: The Social Identity and Stakeholder Perspectives. Group & Organization Management, 43(4), 594–622. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601116664610 Shin, I., Hur, W.M., & Kang, S. (2016). Employees’ perceptions of corporate social responsibility and job performance: A sequential mediation model. Sustainability, 8(5), 493. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8050493 Singh, A. P., & Rahman, Z. (2021). Integrating corporate sustainability and sustainable development goals: Towards a multi-stakeholder framework. Cogent Business & Management, 8(1), 1985686. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1985686 123 Sinkovics, N., Sinkovics, R. R., & Archie-Acheampong, J. (2020). The business responsibility matrix: A diagnostic tool to aid the design of better interventions for achieving the SDGs. Multinational Business Review, 29(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBR-07-2020-0154 Socoliuc, M., Grosu, V., Cosmulese, C. G., & Kicsi, R. (2020). Determinants of Sustainable Performance and Convergence with EU Agenda 2030: The Case of Romanian Forest Enterprises. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 29(3), 2339–2353. https://doi.org/10.15244/pjoes/110757 Suárez-Rico, Y. M., Gómez-Villegas, M., & García-Benau, M. A. (2018). Exploring Twitter for CSR Disclosure: Influence of CEO and Firm Characteristics in Latin American Companies. Sustainability, 10(8), 2617. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082617 Suganthi, L. (2019). Examining the relationship between corporate social responsibility, performance, employees’ pro-environmental behavior at work with green practices as mediator. Journal of Cleaner Production, 232, 739–750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.295 Sun, S., Li, T., Ma, H., Li, R.Y.M., Gouliamos, K., Zheng, J., ... & Yue, X. G. (2020). Does employee quality affect corporate social responsibility? Evidence from China. Sustainability, 12(7), 2692. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072692 Sweileh, W. M. (2020). Bibliometric analysis of peer-reviewed literature on climate change and human health with an emphasis on infectious diseases. Globalization and Health, 16(1), 44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-020-00576-1 Szennay, Á., Szigeti, C., Kovács, N., & Szabó, D. R. (2019). Through the Blurry Looking Glass— SDGs in the GRI Reports. Resources, 8(2), 101. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8020101 Tabares, S. (2021). Do hybrid organizations contribute to Sustainable Development Goals? Evidence from B Corps in Colombia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 280, 124615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124615 Taghian, M., D’Souza, C., & Polonsky, M. (2015). A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility, reputation and business performance. Social Responsibility Journal, 11(2), 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-06-2012-0068 Tajfel, H.E. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. Academic Press. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-48). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1985) The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall Tian, Q., & Robertson, J.L. (2019). How and When Does Perceived CSR Affect Employees’ Engagement in Voluntary Pro-environmental Behavior? Journal of Business Ethics, 155(2), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3497-3 Tibiletti, V., Marchini, P. L., Furlotti, K., & Medioli, A. (2021). Does corporate governance matter in corporate social responsibility disclosure? Evidence from Italy in the “era of sustainability”. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(2), 896–907. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2097 Tiep Le, T., Huan, N. Q., Thuy Hong, T. T., & Tran, D. K. (2021). The contribution of corporate social responsibility on SMEs performance in emerging country. Journal of Cleaner Production, 322, 129103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129103 Tiep Le, T., Ngo, H. Q., & Aureliano-Silva, L. (2021a). Contribution of corporate social responsibility on SMEs’ performance in an emerging market – the mediating roles of brand 124 trust and brand loyalty. International Journal of Emerging Markets, ahead-of-print(ahead-of- print). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-12-2020-1516 Ting, P.-H. (2021). Do large firms just talk corporate social responsibility? - The evidence from CSR report disclosure. Finance Research Letters, 38, 101476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101476 Toppinen, A., Hänninen, V., & Lähtinen, K. (2015). ISO 26000 in the assessment of CSR communication quality: CEO letters and social media in the global pulp and paper industry. Social Responsibility Journal, 11(4), 702–715. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-09-2013-0108 Tran, N., & Pham, B. (2020). The influence of CEO characteristics on corporate environmental performance of SMEs: Evidence from Vietnamese SMEs. Management Science Letters, 10(8), 1671–1682. Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development | Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (n.d.). Retrieved 7 June 2022, from https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda Tsalis, T. A., Malamateniou, K. E., Koulouriotis, D., & Nikolaou, I. E. (2020). New challenges for corporate sustainability reporting: United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for sustainable development and the sustainable development goals. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(4), 1617–1629. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1910 Turker, D. (2009). How Corporate Social Responsibility Influences Organizational Commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(2), 189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9993-8 Ullah, I., Hameed, R. M., Kayani, N. Z., & Fazal, Y. (undefined/ed). CEO ethical leadership and corporate social responsibility: Examining the mediating role of organizational ethical culture and intellectual capital. Journal of Management & Organization, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2019.48 Vacca, A., Iazzi, A., Vrontis, D., & Fait, M. (2020). The Role of Gender Diversity on Tax Aggressiveness and Corporate Social Responsibility: Evidence from Italian Listed Companies. Sustainability, 12(5), 2007. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12052007 Valdez-Juárez, L. E., Gallardo-Vázquez, D., & Ramos-Escobar, E. A. (2018a). CSR and the Supply Chain: Effects on the Results of SMEs. Sustainability, 10(7), 2356. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072356 Valentine, S., & Godkin, L. (2017). Banking Employees’ Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility, Value-Fit Commitment, and Turnover Intentions: Ethics as Social Glue and Attachment. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 29(2), 51–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-017-9290-8 Valverde, J.-M., & Avilés-Palacios, C. (2021). Circular Economy as a Catalyst for Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals: A Positive Relationship between Two Self-Sufficient Variables. Sustainability, 13(22), 12652. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212652 van Beurden, P., & Gössling, T. (2008). The Worth of Values – A Literature Review on the Relation Between Corporate Social and Financial Performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(2), 407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9894-x van den Broek, O. (2020). Narrative fidelity: Making the UN Sustainable Development Goals fit. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 26(3), 441–460. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-01-2020-0032 van der Waal, J. W. H., & Thijssens, T. (2020). Corporate involvement in Sustainable Development Goals: Exploring the territory. Journal of Cleaner Production, 252, 119625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119625 van der Waal, J. W. H., Thijssens, T., & Maas, K. (2021). The innovative contribution of multinational enterprises to the Sustainable Development Goals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 285, 125319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125319 125 van Dick, R., Crawshaw, J. R., Karpf, S., Schuh, S. C., & Zhang, X. (2020). Identity, Importance, and Their Roles in How Corporate Social Responsibility Affects Workplace Attitudes and Behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 35(2), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-019-09619-w van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (n.d.). VOSviewer Manual. 54. vanEck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2017). Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer. Scientometrics, 111(2), 1053–1070. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2300-7 van Huijstee M., & Glasbergen P. (2008). The practice of stakeholder dialogue between multinationals and NGOs. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(5), 298–310. Van Knippenberg, D. & Sleebos, E. (2006). Organizational identification versus organizational commitment: Self-definition, social exchange, and job attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(5), 571–584. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.359 van Zanten, J. A., & van Tulder, R. (2018). Multinational enterprises and the Sustainable Development Goals: An institutional approach to corporate engagement. Journal of International Business Policy, 1(3), 208–233. https://doi.org/10.1057/s42214-018-0008-x van Zanten, J. A., & van Tulder, R. (2021). Analyzing companies’ interactions with the Sustainable Development Goals through network analysis: Four corporate sustainability imperatives. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(5), 2396–2420. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2753 Velte, P. (2019). Do CEO incentives and characteristics influence corporate social responsibility (CSR) and vice versa? A literature review. Social Responsibility Journal, 16(8), 1293–1323. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-04-2019-0145 Verboven, H., & Vanherck, L. (2016). The sustainability paradox of the sharing economy. Uwf UmweltWirtschaftsForum, 24(4), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00550-016-0410-y Vildåsen, S. S. (2018). Corporate sustainability in practice: An exploratory study of the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Business Strategy & Development, 1(4), 256–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.35 Vlachos, P.A., Panagopoulos, N.G., & Rapp, A.A. (2014). Employee judgments of and behaviors toward corporate social responsibility: A multi-study investigation of direct, cascading, and moderating effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(7), 990–1017. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1946 Vollero, A., Conte, F., Bottoni, G., & Siano, A. (2018). The influence of community factors on the engagement of residents in place promotion: Empirical evidence from an Italian heritage site. International Journal of Tourism Research, 20(1), 88-99. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2164 Voparil, C. J., & Bernstein, R. J. (Eds.). (2010). The Rorty Reader (Vol. 5). John Wiley & Sons. Waage, J., Yap, C., Bell, S., Levy, C., Mace, G., Pegram, T., Unterhalter, E., Dasandi, N., Hudson, D., Kock, R., Mayhew, S., Marx, C., & Poole, N. (2015). Governing the UN Sustainable Development Goals: Interactions, infrastructures, and institutions. The Lancet Global Health, 3(5), e251–e252. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(15)70112-9 Waheed, A., & Zhang, Q. (2022). Effect of CSR and Ethical Practices on Sustainable Competitive Performance: A Case of Emerging Markets from Stakeholder Theory Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 175(4), 837–855. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04679-y Waldman, D.A., Sully de Luque, M., Washburn, N., House, R.J., Adetoun, B., Barrasa, A., … Wilderom, C.P.M. (2006). Cultural and leadership predictors of corporate social responsibility values of top management: A GLOBE study of 15 countries. Journal of 126 International Business Studies, 37(6), 823–837. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400230 Wan, P., Chen, X., & Ke, Y. (2020). Does corporate integrity culture matter to corporate social responsibility? Evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 259, 120877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120877 Wang, S., Gao, Y., Hodgkinson, G. P., Rousseau, D. M., & Flood, P. C. (2015). Opening the Black Box of CSR Decision Making: A Policy-Capturing Study of Charitable Wang, Q., Dou, J., & Jia, S. (2016). A Meta-Analytic Review of Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Financial Performance: The Moderating Effect of Contextual Factors. Business & Society, 55(8), 1083–1121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650315584317 Wang, Q., Wu, C., & Sun, Y. (2015). Evaluating corporate social responsibility of airlines using entropy weight and grey relation analysis. Journal of Air Transport Management, 42, 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2014.08.003 Wang, W., Fu, Y., Qiu, H., Moore, J.H., & Wang, Z. (2017). Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Outcomes: A Moderated Mediation Model of Organizational Identification and Moral Identity. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01906 Wang, Y., Xu, S., & Wang, Y. (2020). The consequences of employees’ perceived corporate social responsibility: A meta-analysis. Business Ethics: A European Review, 29(3), 471–496. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12273 Warmate, Z., Eldaly, M. K., & Elamer, A. A. (2021). Offering flexible working opportunities to people with mental disabilities: The missing link between sustainable development goals and financial implications. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(4), 1563–1579. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2694 Wei, J., Ouyang, Z., & Chen, H. (Allan). (2018). CEO characteristics and corporate philanthropic giving in an emerging market: The case of China. Journal of Business Research, 87, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.02.018 Welford, R. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe, North America and Asia: 2004 Survey Results. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 17, 33–52. Weng, P. S., & Chen, W. Y. (2017). Doing good or choosing well? Corporate reputation, CEO reputation, and corporate financial performance. North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 39, 223–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2016.10.008 Wilcox, T. (2006). Human resource development as an element of corporate social responsibility. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 44(2), 184-196. https://doi.org/10.1177/1038411106066395 Yook, K.-H., & Lee, S.-Y. (2020). Chief executive officer narcissism and firm value: The mediating role of corporate social responsibility in the South Korean context. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(4), 1709–1718. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1918 Youn, H., Lee, K., & Lee, S. (2018). Effects of corporate social responsibility on employees in the casino industry. Tourism management, 68, 328-335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.03.018 Yu, H., Shabbir, M. S., Ahmad, N., Ariza-Montes, A., Vega-Muñoz, A., Han, H., Scholz, M., & Sial, M. S. (2021a). A Contemporary Issue of Micro-Foundation of CSR, Employee Pro- Environmental Behavior, and Environmental Performance toward Energy Saving, Carbon Emission Reduction, and Recycling. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(10), 5380. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18105380 127 Yu, H.-C., Kuo, L., & Kao, M.-F. (2017). The relationship between CSR disclosure and competitive advantage. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 8(5), 547–570. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-11-2016-0086 Yu, H.-C., & Kuo, L. (2021). Corporate Philanthropy Strategy and Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability, 13(10), 5655. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105655 Yu, S., Sial, M. S., Tran, D. K., Badulescu, A., Thu, P. A., & Sehleanu, M. (2020). Adoption and Implementation of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in China—Agenda 2030. Sustainability, 12(15), 6288. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156288 Yuan, Y., Tian, G., Lu, L. Y., & Yu, Y. (2019). CEO Ability and Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(2), 391–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3622-3 Zafar, M., & Ali, I. (2016). The influence of corporate social responsibility on employee commitment: The mediating role of employee company identification. Asian Social Science, 12(12), 262. Zhang, C. (2017). Political connections and corporate environmental responsibility: Adopting or escaping? Energy Economics, 68, 539–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2017.10.036 Zhang, J., Kong, D., & Wu, J. (2018). Doing Good Business by Hiring Directors with Foreign Experience. Journal of Business Ethics, 153(3), 859–876. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551- 016-3416-z Zhao, L., Lee, J., & Moon, S. (2019). Employee response to CSR in China: the moderating effect of collectivism. Personnel Review, 48(3), 839-863 Zhao, X., Wu, C., Chen, C. C., & Zhou, Z. (2022). The influence of corporate social responsibility on incumbent employees: A meta-analytic investigation of the mediating and moderating mechanisms. Journal of Management, 48(1), 114-146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320946108 Zhou, C. (2019). Effects of corporate governance on the decision to voluntarily disclose corporate social responsibility reports: Evidence from China. Applied Economics, 51(55), 5900–5910. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2019.1631440 Zhou, C., & Etzkowitz, H. (2021). Triple Helix Twins: A Framework for Achieving Innovation and UN Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability, 13(12), 6535. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126535 Zhou, Z., Luo, B.N., & Tang, T.L.-P. (2018). Corporate Social Responsibility Excites ‘Exponential’ Positive Employee Engagement: The Matthew Effect in CSR and Sustainable Policy. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(4), 339–354. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1464 Zientara, P., Kujawski, L., & Bohdanowicz-Godfrey, P. (2015). Corporate social responsibility and employee attitudes: Evidence from a study of Polish hotel employees. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(6), 859–880. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1019511 Zou, H., Qi, G., Xie, X., & Ma, H. (2020). The effects of formal and informal CEO power on firm risk in China: The mediating role of corporate social responsibility. Asia Pacific Business Review, 0(0), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602381.2020.1843243 Zribi, W., & Boufateh, T. (2020). Asymmetric CEO confidence and CSR: A nonlinear panel ARDL-PMG approach. The Journal of Economic Asymmetries, 22, e00176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeca.2020.e00176 128 129 THESIS SUMMARY (GALICIAN) O concepto de Responsabilidade Social Corporativa (RSC) experimentou unha considerable evolución no tempo, adaptándose aos cambios da sociedade e do entorno empresarial (Latapí Agudelo et al., 2019) así como ás motivacións das empresas para emprender este tipo de iniciativas (ElAlfy et al., 2020). Nesta evolución, as preocupacións e demandas dos stakeholders adquiriron unha importancia crecente (Lane & Devin, 2018) ata o punto de que, na actualidade, a RSC está intrinsecamente ligada ao compromiso dos stakeholders (García-Sánchez et al., 2020a). O compromiso das partes interesadas pódese entender como aquelas prácticas levadas a cabo por unha organización para implicar aos interesados nas actividades organizativas (Greenwood, 2007) nun “esquema de cooperación xusto e mutuamente beneficioso” (Phillips, 1997, p. 54). Así, supón coñecer as demandas das partes interesadas e tratar de satisfacelas (Høvring et al., 2018). Neste sentido, dado que o conxunto de stakeholders dunha empresa é amplo, abarcando unha variedade de individuos, grupos e organizacións que, directa e indirectamente, poden afectar ou se ven afectados polas actividades da empresa (Freeman, 1984) cuxos obxectivos e intereses son tamén diversos (O'Riordan e Fairbrass, 2008), o compromiso dos stakeholders esténdese a unha variedade de áreas e actividades organizativas (Greenwood, 2007), incluíndo, entre outras, planificación estratéxica, xestión de recursos humanos e informes sociais. Como sinalaron Noland e Phillips (2010, p. 40), “que as empresas simplemente interactúen coas partes interesadas xa non é suficiente, se, de feito, o foi algunha vez. A interacción coas partes interesadas é unha actividade empresarial loxicamente necesaria”. Dada a súa importancia para a supervivencia e o éxito da empresa, o compromiso dos stakeholders foi amplamente analizado na literatura, tanto teórica como practicamente, desde diversas correntes e centrándose en diferentes cuestións, o que provocou a falta dunha "comprensión unificada" dos seus esenciais (Kujala et al., 2022), sendo habitual mesturar a participación e a xestión das partes interesadas (Nair, 2020). Aínda que Greenwood (2007, p. 325) suxeriu que o compromiso das partes interesadas é principalmente "unha actividade moralmente neutra", de feito tres compoñentes (é dicir, moral, estratéxico e pragmático) caracterizan o compromiso de ditas partes (Kujala et al., 2022). O compoñente moral recoñece as preocupacións éticas detrás da cooperación coas partes interesadas que implican equidade e apertura (Nollan & Phillips, 2010). O compoñente estratéxico refírese á influencia dos intereses estratéxicos da organización nas actividades de implicación das partes interesadas que buscan obter vantaxes competitivas (van Huijstee & Glasbergen, 2008), aínda que isto non significa necesariamente que haxa motivacións falsas e malévolas detrás do compromiso dos stakeholders (Nollan & Phillips, 2010). Finalmente, o compoñente pragmático salienta os efectos prácticos do compromiso das partes interesadas na vida das partes interesadas (Voparil & Bernstein, 2010). Desde unha perspectiva instrumental, a relación coas partes interesadas ten un impacto no desempeño dunha empresa, tanto directa como indirectamente (Ayuso et al., 2014; Jones et al., 2018; Gupta et al., 2020; Shayan et al., 2022). En consecuencia, o compromiso das partes interesadas "debería formar parte da estratexia máis ampla dunha empresa" (Nollan & Phillips, 2010, p. 41) para que teña en conta os intereses e os requisitos das partes interesadas (Raub &