ESG Performance in Emerging Economies


  • Sady Mazzioni

    Postgraduate Program in Accounting Sciences and Administration, Community University of the Chapecó Region, Chapecó, Santa Catarina, 89809-900, Brazil

  • Caroline Keidann Soschinski

    Postgraduate Program in Accounting Sciences and Administration, Community University of the Chapecó Region, Chapecó, Santa Catarina, 89809-900, Brazil

  • Maurício Leite

    Postgraduate Program in Accounting Sciences and Administration, Community University of the Chapecó Region, Chapecó, Santa Catarina, 89809-900, Brazil

  • Cristian Baú Dal Magro

    Postgraduate Program in Accounting Sciences and Administration, Community University of the Chapecó Region, Chapecó, Santa Catarina, 89809-900, Brazil

  • Simone Leticia Raimundini Sanches

    Postgraduate Program in Accounting Sciences, State University of Maringá, Maringá, Paraná, 87020-900, Brazil

Received: 6 January 2024 | Revised: 23 January 2024 | Accepted: 18 February 2024 | Published Online: 5 March 2024


Business sustainability has been assessed by combining the financial (governance) and non-financial (environmental and social) performance of companies. This assessment must consider the institutional characteristics of the countries. Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) are emerging economies, i.e., in economic and social transition. The aim of this study is to identify the factors that affect ESG performance and each of its pillars of companies located in these emerging markets. This objective was developed by means of panel data regression with fixed effects controlled by year and economic sector, over the period 2016 to 2022, obtaining 6,278 observations of companies located in the BRICS. The main results show that a country’s higher level of transparency (absence of corruption) increases performance in the environmental and social dimensions; while the Index of Economic Freedom is associated with the governance dimension; in the characteristics at the company level, voluntary adherence to the Global Compact stands out, and large companies show better ESG performance compared to medium and small companies. These results have empirical implications at the country level (policies and legislation) and at the company level (headquarters country and size differences). The main contribution indicates that different factors affect the ESG performance of BRICS countries and of companies located in these countries. This contribution fills a gap in the literature and empirical evidence on ESG in companies from emerging markets.


ESG performance, BRICS, Explanatory factors


[1] Gillan, S.L., Koch, A., Starks, L.T., 2021. Firms and social responsibility: A review of ESG and CSR research in corporate finance. Journal of Corporate Finance. 66, 101889. DOI:

[2] Zhou, G., Liu, L., Luo, S., 2022. Sustainable development, ESG performance and company market value: Mediating effect of financial performance. Business Strategy and the Environment. 31(7), 3371–3387. DOI:

[3] Clementino, E., Perkins, R., 2021. How do companies respond to Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) ratings? Evidence from Italy. Journal of Business Ethics. 171, 379–397. DOI:

[4] Garcia, A.S., Mendes-Da-Silva, W., Orsato, R.J., 2017. Sensitive industries produce better ESG performance: Evidence from emerging markets. Journal of Cleaner Production. 150, 135–147. DOI:

[5] Dalal, K.K., Thaker, N., 2019. ESG and corporate financial performance: A panel study of Indian companies. IUP Journal of Corporate Governance. 18(1), 44–59.

[6] Rahman, R.A., Alsayegh, M.F., 2021. Determinants of corporate environment, social and governance (ESG) reporting among Asian firms. Journal of Risk and Financial Management. 14(4), 167. DOI:

[7] Porter, M., Van Der Linde, C., 1995. Green and competitive: Ending the stalemate. The Harvard business review. Harvard Business School Publishing: Brighton. pp. 120–134.

[8] Hart, S., 2006. Capitalism at the crossroads: The countless business opportunities to solve the world’s most difficult problems. Artmed: Porto Alegre. (in Portuguese).

[9] Orsato, R., 2009. Sustainability strategies: When does it pay to be green? Palgrave Macmillan: London.

[10] Meyer, J.W., Rowan, B., 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology. 83(2), 340–363.

[11] Ortas, E., Álvarez, I., Garayar, A., 2015. The environmental, social, governance, and financial performance effects on companies that adopt the United Nations Global Compact. Sustainability. 7(2), 1932–1956. DOI:

[12] Daugaard, D., Ding, A., 2022. Global drivers for ESG performance: The body of knowledge. Sustainability. 14(4), 2322. DOI:

[13] Cai, Y., Pan, C.H., Statman, M., 2016. Why do countries matter so much in corporate social performance?. Journal of Corporate Finance. 41, 591–609. DOI:

[14] Liang, H., Renneboog, L., 2017. On the foundations of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Corporate Finance. 72(2), 853–910. DOI:

[15] Orzes, G., Moretto, A.M., Ebrahimpour, M., et al., 2018. United Nations Global Compact: Literature review and theory-based research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production. 177, 633–654. DOI:

[16] Dialga, I., Vallée, T., 2021. The index of economic freedom: Methodological matters. Studies in Economics and Finance. 38(3), 529–561. DOI:

[17] Budsaratraon, P., Jitmaneeroj, B., 2020. A critique on the Corruption Perceptions Index: An interdisciplinary approach. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences. 70, 100768. DOI:

[18] Drempetic, S., Klein, C., Zwergel, B., 2020. The influence of firm size on the ESG score: Corporate sustainability ratings under review. Journal Business Ethics. 167, 333–360. DOI:

[19] He, F., Du, H., Yu, B., 2022. Corporate ESG performance and manager misconduct: Evidence from China. International Review of Financial Analysis. 82, 102201. DOI:

[20] Schaltegger, S., 2021. Sustainability learnings from the COVID-19 crisis. Opportunities for resilient industry and business development. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal. 12(5), 889–897. DOI:

[21] Cheema-Fox, A., La Perla, B.R., Wang, H.S., et al., 2021. Corporate resilience and response to COVID-19. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance. 33(2), 24–40. DOI:

[22] Atkins, J., Doni, F., Gasperini, A., et al., 2023. Exploring the effectiveness of sustainability measurement: Which ESG metrics will survive COVID-19? Journal of Business Ethics. 185, 629–646. DOI:

[23] Baldini, M., Maso, L.D., Liberatore, G., et al., 2018. Role of country-and firm-level determinants in environmental, social, and governance disclosure. Journal of Business Ethics. 150, 79–98. DOI:

[24] Khalid, F., Razzaq, A., Ming, J., et al., 2022. Firm characteristics, governance mechanisms, and ESG disclosure: How caring about sustainable concerns?. Environment Science and Pollution Research. 29, 82064–82077. DOI:

[25] Ioannou, I., Serafeim, G., 2012. What drives corporate social performance? The role of nation-level institutions. Journal International Business Studies. 43, 834–864. DOI:

[26] Cetindamar, D., Husoy, K., 2007. Corporate social responsibility practices and environmentally responsible behavior: The case of the United Nations Global Compact. Journal of Business Ethics. 76, 163–176. DOI:

[27] Pérez-Batres, L.A., Doh, J.P., Miller, V.V., et al., 2012. Stakeholder pressures as determinants of CSR strategic choice: Why do firms choose symbolic versus substantive self-regulatory codes of conduct. Journal of Business Ethics. 110, 157–172. DOI:

[28] Pérez-Rocha, B.G., 2018. Adoption of voluntary CSR initiatives: Tales of the UN Global Compact [Ph.D. thesis]. Edinburgh: The University of Edinburgh.

[29] Berliner, D., Prakash, A., 2014. The united nations global compact: an institutionalist perspective. Journal of Business Ethics. 122, 217–223. DOI:

[30] Rasche, A., Waddock, S., 2014. Global sustainability governance and the UN Global Compact: A rejoinder to critics. Journal of Business Ethics. 122(2), 209–216. DOI:

[31] Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S., Ruiz, S., 2014. Effect of stakeholders’ pressure on transparency of sustainability reports within GRI framework. Journal of Business Ethics. 122, 53–63. DOI:

[32] Al-Janadi, Y., Rahman, R.A., Omar, N.H., 2013. Corporate governance mechanisms and voluntary disclosure in Saudi Arabia. Research Journal of Finance and Accounting. 4(4), 25–36.

[33] Batistella, A.J., Mazzioni, S., Dal Magro, C.B., 2020. Effect of national culture on corporate social responsibility. Revista de Administração IMED. 10(1), 63–85. (in Portuguese). DOI:

[34] Beelitz, A., Merkl-Davies, D.M., 2012. Using discourse to restore organisational legitimacy: ‘CEO-speak’ after an incident in a German nuclear power plant. Journal of Business Ethics. 108, 101–120. DOI:

[35] Baid, V., Jayaraman, V., 2022. Amplifying and promoting the “S” in ESG investing: the case for social responsibility in supply chain financing. Managerial Finance. 48(8), 1279–1297. DOI:


How to Cite

Mazzioni, S., Soschinski, C. K., Maurício Leite, Cristian Baú Dal Magro, & Simone Leticia Raimundini Sanches. (2024). ESG Performance in Emerging Economies. Macro Management & Public Policies, 6(1), 21–35.


Article Type