The Concept of Corporate Social Responsibility Based on Integrating the SDGs into Corporate Strategies: International Experience and the Risks for Profit

Aleksei V. Bogoviz; Svetlana V. Lobova; Alexander N. Alekseev

doi:10.3390/risks10060117

Bogoviz, Aleksei V.;Lobova, Svetlana V.;Alekseev, Alexander N.

2022-06-02 00:00:00

risks Article The Concept of Corporate Social Responsibility Based on Integrating the SDGs into Corporate Strategies: International Experience and the Risks for Proﬁt 1 , 2 3 Aleksei V. Bogoviz * , Svetlana V. Lobova and Alexander N. Alekseev Independent Researcher, 125284 Moscow, Russia Department of Economics and Econometrics, Altai State University, 656049 Barnaul, Russia; lobova@mc.asu.ru Department of Systems Analysis in Economics, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, 115093 Moscow, Russia; alexeev_alexan@mail.ru * Correspondence: aleksei.bogoviz@gmail.com Abstract: This paper aims to study the international experience (in the aspect and taking into account the speciﬁcs of regions of the world) integrating the SDGs into corporate strategies and to identify the following: (1) supported SDGs (UN standards); (2) implemented measures of corporate social responsibility to support the SDGs and (3) approach from the positions of risks for proﬁt. Based on a sample of 193 countries (seven regions of the world) from 2020–2021 (386 observations) based on the method of structural equation modelling (SEM), it was discovered that the SDGs (UN standards) are supported by companies to a different extent in the different world regions, but, on the whole, they are strongly integrated into the corporate strategies in each region. The largest support of the SDGs from business is observed in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The risks of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies for proﬁt are low Citation: Bogoviz, Aleksei V., (moderate in the OECD). The commercial approach to integrating the SDGs into corporate strategies Svetlana V. Lobova, and Alexander N. is implemented in all regions of the world. The theoretical signiﬁcance of the results consists in Alekseev. 2022. The Concept of the fact that the discovered differences pointed at the necessity for and set the foundation for the Corporate Social Responsibility transition from global to regional management of the integration of the SDGs (UN standards) into Based on Integrating the SDGs into corporate strategies. The practical signiﬁcance of the authors’ conclusions and developments consists Corporate Strategies: International Experience and the Risks for Proﬁt. in the fact that they allow increasing the effectiveness of risk management of the practices of corporate Risks 10: 117. https://doi.org/ social responsibility for proﬁt. 10.3390/risks10060117 Keywords: corporate social responsibility (CSR); integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies; Academic Editor: Montserrat Guillén risks for proﬁt; regions of the world Received: 20 April 2022 Accepted: 23 May 2022 JEL Classiﬁcation: D81; G32; Q01; M14; N30 Published: 2 June 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in 1. Introduction published maps and institutional afﬁl- iations. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a unique collective agreement of the modern time, which was concluded between government, society, and business at a global scale and which ensures outstanding progress in sustainable development. Society is the direct beneﬁciary of the SDGs, but bears the lowest expenditures for their implementation Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. and, thus, supports them. The government protects society’s interests, and implementation Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. of the SDGs is among its main responsibilities. Participation of business in the achievement This article is an open access article of the SDGs is complex and contradictory, deserving special attention. It is no coincidence distributed under the terms and that the necessity for the integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies is a part of the conditions of the Creative Commons agenda in the Decade of Action (Casais et al. 2022; Karagiannis et al. 2022; Trzeciak 2021). Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// In most cases, support of the SDGs means losses for business (including a shortfall creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ in proﬁts—alternative costs), i.e., contradicts its ﬁnancial interests. The existing scientiﬁc 4.0/). Risks 2022, 10, 117. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks10060117 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/risks Risks 2022, 10, 117 2 of 27 literature distinguishes three approaches to the integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies. The 1st—regulatory—approach is based on companies’ unpreparedness for voluntary losses, so the implementation of the SDGs is a “market gap”. That is the reason why the government does not provide companies with the choice and opportunity to voluntarily support the SDGs (expecting that this will not take place at the required scale). Instead of this, the government adopts and controls the observation of labour and ecological standards, as well as standards of corporate ﬁnancial reporting (Batóg and Batóg 2021). On the one hand, this ensures wide support of the SDGs by entrepreneurship, but, on the other hand, government interference with the natural processes distorts the effect of the market mechanism and decreases the effectiveness of entrepreneurship (Hamed et al. 2022; Liu 2021). The other two approaches are based on corporate social responsibility and are widely studied in the existing literature. A lot of scientiﬁc publications are devoted to the re- search of the interconnection between corporate social responsibility and the indicators of a company’s activity (Fontana 2017; Jaisinghani and Sekhon 2022; Kaul and Luo 2018; Schramm-Klein et al. 2015). A lot of studies undertook the testing of the interconnection between corporate social responsibility and the indicators of a company’s activity, including proﬁtability, ﬁrm risk, stock liquidity, etc. (Akbar et al. 2021; Gennaro 2021; Zhang et al. 2021; Bednarczyk et al. 2021). Using the existing literature, the following two approaches are differentiated by the criterion of the risks of corporate social responsibility for proﬁt. The 2nd—non-commercial—approach to corporate social responsibility implies that companies have to voluntarily refuse their ﬁnancial interests in favour of implementing the SDGs and accept high risks for proﬁt. According to this approach, corporate social responsibility is associated with charity. As a matter of act, charity events, volunteering, and companies’ donations allow accelerating the progress in the achievement of the SDGs. Many studies (in particular, Kuzey et al. 2022; Loor-Zambrano et al. 2022; Bu et al. 2022) provide arguments in favour of the idea that companies can “do well by doing good”. In other words, a company must experience a loss when it contributes to CSR, especially when stakeholders in the company appreciate the CSR practices. However, in the background of non-proﬁt activities lie commercial proﬁts, while the widespread deprivation of companies of the principal opportunity to make a proﬁt would lead to their bankruptcy (Chu and Fang 2021). Only the most successful and stable companies can accept large risks for proﬁt. That is why the non-commercial approach to corporate social responsibility cannot be extended to entrepreneurship, on the whole, i.e., it has limited capabilities for scaling the practices of integrating the SDGs into corporate strategies (Jackson 2021). The 3rd—commercial—approach to corporate social responsibility means that, during its implementation, companies are guided by their main goal, which is connected to making a proﬁt, and the achievement of the SDGs is the priority. This ensures low risks of corporate social responsibility for companies’ proﬁt. This approach ﬁts the nature of entrepreneurship in the market economy in the best way and thus has potential for wide practical use since it ensures the largest systemic proﬁt for all interested parties in the long term (Ang et al. 2022; Song and Tao 2022; Xie et al. 2022; Zhang et al. 2022). The research question (RQ) of this paper is as follows: do companies implement corporate social responsibility in practice according to the recommendations given in the SDGs (UN standards)? How do they do this in different regions of the world? Which approach do they use? What are the risks for proﬁt? The hypothesis of this research is as follows: companies actively implement corporate social responsibility in practice according to the recommendations given in the SDGs (UN standards) based on the commercial (3rd) approach, but the scale of this practice and its risks for proﬁt are different depending on regions of the world. The objective of this paper is to study the international experience (in the aspect and taking into account the speciﬁcs of regions of the world) of integrating the SDGs into Risks 2022, 10, 117 3 of 27 corporate strategies and to identify the following: (1) supported SDGs (UN standards); (2) implemented measures of corporate social responsibility to support the SDGs and (3) the approach from the positions of the risks for proﬁt. 2. Literature Review This paper uses the theory of integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies, which describes and characterises in detail all three existing approaches to this integration. Their comparative analysis is given in Table 1. Table 1. Comparative analysis of the existing approaches to the integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies. Approach to Integrating the SDGs into Corporate Strategies Criterion of Comparison Non-Commercial Approach Commercial Approach to Regulatory Approach to CSR * CSR * Mechanism of integrating the State regulation Corporate social responsibility SDGs into corporate strategies Support of the SDGs Yes, forced Yes, voluntary Market consequences of Slowdown of economic Slowdown of economic Support of the SDGs becomes integrating the SDGs into growth, development of the growth, interruption of the a new form of “healthy” corporate strategies shadow economy market mechanism competition Risks of support of the SDGs High Low for proﬁt (Akopova et al. 2020; (Medentseva 2017; Muhmad (Pizzi et al. 2021; Rahman Mochales and Blanch 2022; Existing literature in which and Muhamad 2021; 2021; Raithatha and Shaw Shayan et al. 2022; Sinkovics the approach is presented Petrovskaya et al. 2022; Roy 2021). et al. 2021; Waheed and Zhang et al. 2022; Vagin et al. 2022). 2022; Wang et al. 2022). * CSR—CSR. Source: authors. As shown in Table 1, the regulatory approach uses the mechanism of state regulation during the integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies. With that, support for the SDGs is forced. Market implications of the integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies are linked to the slowdown of economic growth and development of the shadow economy, and the risks of support of the SDGs for proﬁt are high (Pizzi et al. 2021; Rahman 2021; Raithatha and Shaw 2021). The other two approaches use the mechanism of CSR during the integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies. According to the non-commercial approach to CSR, support of the SDGs is voluntary. The market implications of integrating the SDGs into corporate strategies are linked to the slowdown of economic growth and dysfunction of the market mechanism (but the risks of support of the SDGs for proﬁt are also high Akopova et al. 2020; Mochales and Blanch 2022; Shayan et al. 2022; Sinkovics et al. 2021; Waheed and Zhang 2022; Wang et al. 2022). The commercial approach to corporate social responsibility implies the voluntary support of the SDGs, which becomes a new form of “healthy” competition in the market (in addition to price competition and quality competition) (Medentseva 2017; Muhmad and Muhamad 2021; Petrovskaya et al. 2022; Roy et al. 2022; Vagin et al. 2022). A serious drawback of the ﬁrst two (regulatory and non-commercial) approaches is the high risks of support of the SDGs for proﬁt (Kornieieva 2020; Lassala et al. 2021; Martí-Ballester 2020). The commercial approach is very different due to the low risks of support of the SDGs for proﬁt. This is illustrated by the bi-directional vector scale of the integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies from the standpoint of ﬁnancial risks in various distinguished approaches (Figure 1). Risks 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 26 of the SDGs for profit. This is illustrated by the bi-directional vector scale of the integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies from the standpoint of financial risks in various dis- Risks 2022, 10, 117 4 of 27 tinguished approaches (Figure 1). Support of the SDGs Non-commercial approach to CSR Regulatory Commercial approach approach to CSR Financial effectiveness (profit/expenditures) of the support of the Profit from the losses from the zero (SDGs are not SDGs support of the SDGs support of the SDGs supported) Figure 1. Bi-directional vector scale of the integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies from the positions of risk for proﬁt in various distinguished approaches. Source: authors. The scale in Figure 1 shows that the non-commercial approach to CSR and the regula- Figure 1. Bi-directional vector scale of the integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies from tory approach stimulate the movement from point A to point B. In section BA, business the positions of risk for profit in various distinguished approaches. Source: authors. suffers losses from the support of the SDGs, the size of which grows in the course of approach to point A. The scale in Figure 1 shows that the non-commercial approach to CSR and the regu- The commercial approach to corporate social responsibility opens a perspective for latory approach stimulate the movement from point A to point B. In section BA, business the movement to the right (to point C) along the stretch BC. In the works of Battisti et al. suffers losses from the support of the SDGs, the size of which grows in the course of ap- (2022), Kong (2022), Quang et al. (2022), Wentzel et al. (2022), it is noted that the risks of proach to point A. integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies are rather high for the risks The commercial approach to corporate social responsibility opens a perspective for on the whole. the movement to the right (to point C) along the stretch BC. In the works of Battisti et al. The detailed characteristics of the integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies in (2022), Kong (2022), Quang et al. (2022), Wentzel et al. (2022), it is noted that the risks of alternative approaches (based on the existing literature) are presented in Table 2. integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies are rather high for the risks As shown in Table 2, though CSR can support all SDGs at once, it is mostly focused on on the whole. the following SDGs: SDG 5, SDG 8, SDG 13, and SDG 16. These SDGs have the potential The detailed characteristics of the integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies in for commercialisation. alternative approaches (based on the existing literature) are presented in Table 2. Other SDGs belong to the sphere of charity (and the potential contribution of business to their practical implementation is less vivid), so they are not considered in this paper. Table 2. Detailed characteristics of the integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies during the The performed systematisation allowed distinguishing three key directions of corporate alternative approaches. social responsibility to support the SDGs: responsible human resource management (HRM), Supported SDGs— CSR Measures to Support the responsible production (corporate environmental responsibility), and responsible ﬁnance. Direction of CSR Indicator of the UN (2021) Symbol UN Standards SDGs Let us present speciﬁc measures that are implemented in the above directions and Gender gap in time spent doing unpaid Provision of gender-neutral jobs provide a more detailed description of the CSR practices and their support for the SDGs. SRSDG(1) SDG5, SDG8 work (minutes/day) and fair wages The measures of corporate social responsibility to support the SDGs (UN standards—on Keeping a stable number of jobs or the stretch BC in Figure 1) include the following (from the positions of responsible human Unemployment rate (% of the total labour SRSDG(2) SDG8 increasing it to support employ- resources management (HRM)): Responsible HRM force) ment Provision of gender-neutral jobs and fair wages (He and Kim 2021; Hirsu et al. 2021). Fundamental labour rights are effectively Guarantee of labour rights (official Using this measure, the CSR practices in support of the SDGs imply the creation of equal SRSDG(3) SDG8 guaranteed (worst 0–1 best) employment) conditions for the professional activities of all employees, regardless of their gender. Ad- Fatal work-related accidents embodied in Provision of occupational safety ditionally, a transparent and ﬂexible approach to wages, which takes into account the SRSDG(4) SDG8 imports (per 100,000 population) and health individual results of each employee’s work, is used: Stability or increase in jobs to support employment (Zhao et al. 2021). Using this measure, the CSR practices in support of the SDGs imply the refusal of personnel cuts even amid a crisis, the formation of a personnel reserve for continuous ﬁlling of jobs, and the creation of additional jobs, apart from the satisfaction of the company’s Risks 2022, 10, 117 5 of 27 main needs for personnel in the striving for the growth of the intensity of business processes in the connection to human resources. Guarantee of labour rights (ofﬁcial employment) (Chanda and Goyal 2020; Ramos- González et al. 2021). Using this measure, the CSR practices in support of the SDGs imply providing employees with an expanded spectrum of social labour guarantees, which covers the basic obligations of employers, dictated by the labour law. Provision of production safety (Rawshdeh et al. 2019). Using this measure, the CSR practices in support of the SDGs imply accelerated automatisation of the types of labour activities that are potentially dangerous for life and health and employees, with the preservation of jobs (employees perform the function of remote control over automatised business processes). From the position of responsible production (corporate environmental responsibility): Improving treatment systems for reducing environmental pollution (Han and Cao 2021). Using this measure, the CSR practices in support of the SDGs imply a voluntary transition of companies to higher environmental standards of their activities and issued products (for example, automobile manufacturing) and implementation of ecological innovations. Refusal to include ecological costs in the price (Setyowati et al. 2021). Using this measure, the CSR practices in support of the SDGs imply a voluntary refusal of companies of a part of the proﬁt in favour of an increase in environmental friendliness of their activities. From the position of responsible ﬁnance: Business’s ﬁght against corruption (Dela Cruz et al. 2020). Using this measure, the CSR practices in support of the SDGs imply the companies’ refusal to participate in corruption schemes and disclosure of these schemes. Full-scale payment of taxes (ofﬁcial business) (Panos and Wilson 2020). Using this measure, the CSR practices in support of the SDGs imply companies’ refusal to participate in the schemes of tax evasion. Despite the in-depth elaboration of the issues of the support of the SDGs with the help of corporate social responsibility, the following aspects remain poorly studied and unclear: (1) Which SDGs (UN standards) are supported by companies in different regions of the world (research gap No. 1)? (2) Which (of the list given in Table 2) measures of corporate social responsibility to support the SDGs are implemented in the practice of companies in different regions of the world (research gap No. 2)? (3) Which approach is used? What are the risks of support of the SDGs (UN standards) with the help of corporate social responsibility for proﬁt (research gap No. 3)? Based on the above gaps, the research question of this paper is formulated. This paper strives to ﬁll in the research gap (and answer the research question) by studying the international experience of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies based on corporate social responsibility in isolation in each region of the world and to specify the cause-and-effect links of the support of the SDGs in entrepreneurship for its risks for proﬁt. Risks 2022, 10, 117 6 of 27 Table 2. Detailed characteristics of the integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies during the alternative approaches. Supported CSR Measures to Support Direction of CSR Indicator of the UN (2021) Symbol SDGs—UN Standards the SDGs Gender gap in time spent Provision of gender-neutral doing unpaid work SR SDG5, SDG8 SDG(1) jobs and fair wages (minutes/day) Keeping a stable number of Unemployment rate (% of SR SDG8 jobs or increasing it to SDG(2) the total labour force) support employment Responsible HRM * Fundamental labour rights Guarantee of labour rights are effectively guaranteed SR SDG8 SDG(3) (ofﬁcial employment) (worst 0–1 best) Fatal work-related accidents Provision of occupational embodied in imports (per SR SDG8 SDG(4) safety and health 100,000 population) Production-based SO Responsible production Improvement of treatment SR SDG13 SDG(5) emissions (kg/capita) (corporate systems to reduce environmental Production-based nitrogen environmental pollution SR SDG13 SDG(6) responsibility) emissions (kg/capita) Carbon Pricing Score at Refusal to include EUR60/tCO (%, worst SR SDG13 environmental costs in the 2 SDG(7) 0–100 best) price Corruption Perception Index Business’s ﬁght against SR SDG16 SDG(8) Responsible ﬁnance (worst 0–100 best) corruption Corporate Tax Haven Score Full-scale payment of taxes SR SDG16 SDG(9) (best 0–100 worst) (ofﬁcial business) * HRM—human resources management. Source: authors. 3. Materials and Methods To answer the research question (RQ), the discovered research gaps are consistently ﬁlled in and the research is conducted according to the following strategy (Table 3). The research objects are 193 countries in 2021, for which the statistics of the achieve- ment of the SDGs are collected and the Sustainable Development Index is calculated; in the multicriterial (given the criteria of geographical location, level of income, and economic integration) classiﬁcation of the UN (2021), they are divided into the following categories: Africa: 49 countries; E. Europe and C. Asia: 27 countries; East and South Asia: 21 countries; LAC: 30 countries; MENA: 17 countries; Oceania: 12 countries; OECD: 37 countries. The choice of SDG 5, SDG 8, SDG 13, and SDG 16 is due to the fact that the current statistics on them reﬂect business’s contribution to the largest extent. Though there are no isolated statistics on how many companies support these SDGs and to what extent, this limitation of the existing statistics could be overcome by the study of the SDGs (the selected SDGs) in which an important (and even main) role belongs to a business. The studied indicators of the UN are obtained not at the level of companies but at the level of the economy on the whole. This allows receiving the uniﬁed statistics—compatible data at the level of all regions of the world: universal indicators and their values, without the number of companies and size of countries. Risks 2022, 10, 117 7 of 27 Table 3. The strategy of the research. Research Research Gap Research Task Research Logic Method Determining the activity of the use Structural of CSR measures to support the must be above 50% analysis SDGs () (1) Determining the level of integrating the Evaluating the regularity of the (1) Which SDGs (UN standards) Analysis of SDGs (UN standards) support of the SDGs by companies must be below 80% are supported by companies in variation into corporate through CSR measures ( ) different regions of the world? strategies Finding the use of CSR measures (+ +)/3, % Comparative to support the SDG/worldwide must be above 50% analysis average value () ratio (2) Which measures of corporate social responsibility to support Consideration of the (2) Comparing the selected practices to the measures of the SDGs are implemented in the Logical analysis differences among regions corporate social responsibility from Table 2 practice of companies in of the world different regions of the world? Structural Determining the consequences of Establishment of complex equation (3) Which approach is (3) Qualitatively various practices of corporate connections between the modelling implemented—what are the (high/low) evaluating social responsibility for proﬁt variables (SEM) risks of support of the SDGs (UN the risks of integrating standards) with the help of the SDGs into Positive (low risks for Assessing the consequences of the corporate social responsibility corporate strategies proﬁt) or negative (high selected practices for proﬁt in Logical analysis for proﬁt? for companies’ proﬁt risks for proﬁt) regions of the world consequences Source: developed and compiled by the authors. The sample is given in the Supplementary Materials (Tables S1 and S2). Detailed deﬁnitions of the variables are provided in the Supplementary Materials (Table S11). The advantages of the considered sample are that it is the most detailed study of the experience of the global economic system on the whole and the possibility to specify the features of countries from various categories. The research is performed based on the 2021 data. According to the research strategy (Table 3), to achieve the stated goal, this paper solves the following tasks. The 1st task: determining the level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies. The following is done for this: Determining the activity of the use of CSR measures to support the SDGs () with the help of the method of structural analysis by ﬁnding the ratio of the number of countries for which the values of the indicators of the support of the SDGs are non-zero (difference between the total number of countries and the number of zeroes for the column) to the total number of countries (in per cent): it must be above 50%. Evaluating the regularity of the support of the SDGs by companies through CSR measures ( ), with the help of the method of analysis of variance (by column, in per cent): it must be below 80%. Finding the ratio of the use of CSR measures to support the SDGs to the worldwide average value (), with the help of the method of comparative analysis (in per cent): it must be above 50%. The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies for each selected SDG is determined according to the formula: (+ +)/3. As a result, the aggregate integration of the selected SDGs in the corporate strategies is calculated as the arithmetic mean for all selected SDGs. The 2nd task: determining the speciﬁc measures of corporate social responsibility to support the SDGs, which are implemented in the practice of companies in different regions of the world, through the comparison of the selected practices to the measures of corporate social responsibility from Table 2. The 3rd task: qualitatively (high/low) evaluating the risks of integrating the SDGs into corporate strategies for companies’ proﬁt. To achieve the stated task, the consequences Risks 2022, 10, 117 8 of 27 for various practices of corporate social responsibility for proﬁt are identiﬁed with the help of the regression analysis method. For this, the dependence between the indicator countries of the UN (2021) from Table 2 (let us denote them as CSR ) and the targeted result—shifted proﬁts of SDG(1)–(9) multinationals (let us denote it as SPM, measured in USD billion)—is found (UN 2021). The economic essence of this econometric procedure consists in identifying the connections between the indicators of implementing the SDGs and companies’ proﬁt (shifted proﬁts of multinationals). The research model of this paper is as follows: SPM = F(CSR ). (1) SDG(1)-(9) Model (1) is deliberately given in the generalised form (as a function), to allow the inclusion of the different number of factor variables—selected CSR practices (from 1 to all 9)—the connection of which with the resulting variable is reliable (checked with the help of the F test, to ensure the precision of the analysis results). Since the statistics for all variables from model (1) are not available for 2020 (no data for Fundamental labour rights are effectively guaranteed (SR ) and Carbon Pricing Score at EUR60/tCO (SR ), SDG(3) 2 SDG(7) for the full coverage of all selected indicators, model (1) is compiled based on the data for 2021 only—a rather large sample of 193 observations). Apart from this, we compiled a structural equation model, which is reﬂected in the block diagram in Figure 1. Figure 2 shows that targeted outcome (ﬁnancial risk): shifted proﬁts of multinationals depend on the factors of responsible HRM, responsible production (corporate environ- mental responsibility), and responsible ﬁnance, which are interconnected. The targeted outcome (ﬁnancial risk): shifted proﬁts of multinationals are also inﬂuenced by other (residual) factors that are uniﬁed into one error of the model (i.e., latent variable). All variables of the structural equation model have their variation (scatter of values: var). To compile a structural equation model, we form an expanded (uniﬁed) sample, which includes the data not only for 2021 but also for 2020, due to which the aggregate array of data contains 386 observations. The sample for SEM is presented in Table S3. The choice of the method of structural equation modelling (SEM) is explained by it being one of the most precise methods of econometric statistics. It allows the following: Including in the model any number of factor variables (CSR ) and taking into SDG account the systemic and isolated connection between each variable and the targeted outcome. Due to this, model (1) can have several mathematical expressions, which is important for this research, to obtain the most precise results and their correct treatment. Taking into account and describing in detail the connections between the factor vari- ables and the resulting variable and among each other. To ensure better visualisation of data, the connections between factors, instead of the reﬂection in the structural equation model, are presented separately in the form of the covariance matrix (which reﬂects the cross-correlation of factor variables). Considering covariance of each variable with itself (a measure of its scatter) and the residual components that are not included in the interpretation and are moved beyond the limits of the analysed model (errors of the model). They are important since they ensure the model’s correctness for it is widely known that corporate social responsibility (support for the SDGs) is not the only, and not even the main, factor (set of factors in the context of the SDGs) of companies’ proﬁt and its change (ﬁnancial risks). Acknowledgement of the imperfection and limitations of the model improves its understanding and raises its practical usefulness. Determining not only the general connection of indicators but also the regularity of the change in the targeted outcome depending on the change in the factor variables. Due to the determination of this regularity, model (1) will allow not only selecting the CSR practices that are closely connected to proﬁt but also revealing their consequences Risks 2022, 10, 117 9 of 27 Risks 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 26 for proﬁt. This allows differentiating the CSR practices that ensure the contribution to the implementation of the SDGs without ﬁnancial losses for business (low risk (low risk for profit) and the practices that cause losses for the business (high risk for for proﬁt) and the practices that cause losses for the business (high risk for proﬁt). profit). Differentiation between these practices is very important for the answer to Differentiation between these practices is very important for the answer to the set RQ: the set RQ: explaining the stretch BC in Figure 1. explaining the stretch BC in Figure 1. Then, based on the results of structural equation modelling (SEM) and using the Then, based on the results of structural equation modelling (SEM) and using the method of logical analysis, we assess the consequences of the selected practices for profit method of logical analysis, we assess the consequences of the selected practices for proﬁt in in re regions gions o off the the world world:: po positive sitive ( (low low r risks isks for for pro proﬁt) fit) or or neg negative ative (high (high r risks isks fo for r prof proﬁt) it) consequences. consequences. var CSRSDG(1) Gender gap in time spent doing unpaid workfull var CSRSDG(2) Responsible HRM Unemployment rate var CSRSDG(4) Fatal work-related accidents embodied in imports var var CSRSDG(5) SPM Production-based SO Targeted outcome (financial risk): Shifted profits of multinationals emissions Responsible production var CSRSDG(6) (corporate environmental Production-based nitrogen responsibility) emissions var var CSRSDG(8) Corruption Perception Index Responsible finance var CSRSDG(9) Corporate Tax Haven Score Figure 2. The generalised block diagram of the structural equation model. Source: authors. Figure 2. The generalised block diagram of the structural equation model. Source: authors. Risks 2022, 10, 117 10 of 27 4. Results Within the ﬁrst research task, the representation of the CSR practices to support the SDGs (UN standards) in the distinguished regions of the world is determined (Tables 4–10). According to Table 4, the following measures of corporate social responsibility to support the SDGs (UN standards) are implemented in Africa: 1. Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment. The activity of the use of CSR measures to support the SDGs (): 97.96%. Regularity of support of the SDGs by companies through CSR measures ( ): 80.64%. The ratio of the use of CSR measures to support the SDGs to the worldwide average value (): 95.22%. Level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: (97.96 + 80.64 + 95.22)/3 = 90.94%. 2. Guarantee of labour rights (ofﬁcial employment). The activity of the use of CSR measures to support the SDGs (): 63.27%. Regularity of support of the SDGs by companies through CSR measures ( ): 16.56%. The ratio of the use of CSR measures to support the SDGs to the worldwide average value (): 91.69%. Level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: (63.27 + 16.56 + 91.69) = 57.17%. 3. Business’s ﬁght against corruption: The activity of the use of CSR measures to support the SDGs (): 100.00%. Regularity of support of the SDGs by companies through CSR measures ( ): 39.23%. The ratio of the use of CSR measures to support the SDGs to the worldwide average value (): 75.01%. Level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: (100.00 + 39.23 + 75.01)/3 = 71.42%. The systemic integration of the selected SDGs (UN standards) in the corporate strate- gies: (90.94 + 51.17 + 71.42)/3 = 73.18% (high). According to Table 5, the following measures of corporate social responsibility to support the SDGs (UN standards) are implemented in E. Europe and C. Asia: Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment. The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 75.43%. Guarantee of labour rights (ofﬁcial employment). The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 57.65%. Business’s ﬁght against corruption. The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 67.25%. Full-scale payment of taxes (ofﬁcial business). The level of integration of the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 47.27%. The systemic integration of the selected SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: (75.43 + 57.65 + 67.25 + 47.27)/4 = 61.90% (high). Risks 2022, 10, 117 11 of 27 Table 4. Representation of the CSR practices to support the SDGs (UN standards) in countries of Africa in 2021. SDG 5, SDG 8 SDG 8 SDG 8 SDG 13 SDG 13 SDG 13 SDG 16 SDG 16 SDG 8 Number of countries 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 Number of 0 49 1 18 3 3 3 49 0 40 The activity of the use of 0.00 97.96 63.27 93.88 93.88 93.88 0.00 100.00 18.37 CSR measures, % Average 0.00 8.41 0.54 0.23 71.62 22.87 0.00 32.31 54.85 Standard deviation 0.00 6.78 0.09 0.55 184.71 29.80 0.00 12.67 11.53 Variation, % 0.00 80.64 16.56 243.70 257.92 130.31 0.00 39.23 21.02 Arithmetic means for the 123.33 8.01 0.59 0.71 87.74 29.49 40.86 43.07 62.19 world Average/best value ratio, 0 95.22 91.69 314.04 122.51 128.95 0.00 75.01 113.38 Source: calculated and compiled by the authors. Table 5. Representation of CSR practices to support the SDGs (UN standards) in countries of E. Europe and C. Asia in 2021. SDG 5, SDG 8 SDG 8 SDG 8 SDG 13 SDG 13 SDG 13 SDG 16 SDG 16 SDG 8 Number of countries 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 Gender Gap in Time Spent Doing Gender Gap in Time Spent Doing Unpaid Unpaid Work (Minutes/Day) Work (Minutes/Day) Unemployment Rate (% of the Unemployment Rate (% of the Total Total Labour Force) Labour Force) Fundamental Labour Rights Are Fundamental Labour Rights Are Effectively Effectively Guaranteed (Worst 0–1 Best) Guaranteed (Worst 0–1 Best) Fatal Work-Related Accidents Embodied Fatal Work-Related Accidents Embodied in Imports (per 100,000 Population) in Imports (per 100,000 Population) Production-Based SO Production-Based SO 2 2 Emissions (kg/Capita) Emissions (kg/Capita) Production-Based Nitrogen Production-Based Nitrogen Emissions (kg/Capita) Emissions (kg/Capita) Carbon Pricing Score at Carbon Pricing Score at EUR60/tCO EUR60/tCO (%, Worst 0–100 Best) (%, Worst 0–100 Best) Corruption Perception Corruption Perception Index Index (Worst 0–100 Best) (Worst 0–100 Best) Corporate Tax Haven Corporate Tax Haven Score Score (Best 0–100 Worst) (Best 0–100 Worst) Risks 2022, 10, 117 12 of 27 Table 5. Cont. SDG 5, SDG 8 SDG 8 SDG 8 SDG 13 SDG 13 SDG 13 SDG 16 SDG 16 SDG 8 Number of 0 27 4 11 0 0 0 27 4 18 The activity of the use of 0.00 85.19 59.26 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 85.19 33.33 CSR measures, % Average 0.00 9.05 0.57 0.85 79.65 27.30 0.00 37.87 64.22 Standard deviation 0.00 4.76 0.10 2.09 111.23 27.12 0.00 10.85 7.47 Variation, % 0.00 52.60 16.84 245.95 139.66 99.33 0.00 28.64 11.64 Arithmetic means for the 123.33 8.01 0.59 0.71 87.74 29.49 40.86 43.07 62.19 world Average/best value ratio, 0 88.49 96.86 83.62 110.16 108.01 0.00 87.93 96.84 Source: calculated and compiled by the authors. Table 6. Representation of the CSR practices to support the SDGs (UN standards) in countries of East and South Asia in 2021. SDG 5, SDG 8 SDG 8 SDG 8 SDG 13 SDG 13 SDG 13 SDG 16 SDG 16 SDG 8 Number of countries 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 Number of 0 21 6 2 1 1 21 0 19 The activity of the use of 0.00 100.00 71.43 90.48 95.24 95.24 0.00 100.00 9.52 CSR measures, % Average 0.00 4.11 0.52 0.61 59.28 20.08 0.00 39.57 69.83 Standard deviation 0.00 2.09 0.12 1.49 90.30 20.76 0.00 15.62 16.30 Variation, % 0.00 50.75 22.62 243.09 152.33 103.37 0.00 39.48 23.34 Arithmetic means for the 123.33 8.01 0.59 0.71 87.74 29.49 40.86 43.07 62.19 world Average/best value ratio, 0 194.73 88.68 115.64 148.01 146.86 0.00 91.88 89.06 Source: calculated and compiled by the authors. According to Table 7, the following CSR measures to support the SDGs (UN standards) are implemented in LAC: Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment. The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 69.86%. Gender Gap in Time Spent Doing Unpaid Work (Minutes/Day) Unemployment Rate (% of the Total Labour Force) Fundamental Labour Rights Are Effectively Guaranteed (Worst 0–1 Best Fatal Work-Related Accidents Embodied in Imports (per 100,000 Population) Production-Based SO Emissions (kg/Capita) Production-Based Nitrogen Emissions (kg/Capita) Carbon Pricing Score at EUR60/tCO (%, Worst 0–100 Best) Corruption Perception Index (Worst 0–100 Best) Corporate Tax Haven Score (Best 0–100 Worst) Risks 2022, 10, 117 13 of 27 Guarantee of labour rights (ofﬁcial employment). The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 69.84%. Business’s ﬁght against corruption. The level of integration of the SDGs (UN stan- dards) into corporate strategies: 73.82%. The systemic integration of the selected SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: (69.86 + 69.84 + 73.82)/3 = 71.17 (high). Table 7. Representation of the CSR practices to support the SDGs (UN standards) in countries of LAC in 2021. SDG 5, SDG 8 SDG 8 SDG 8 SDG 13 SDG 13 SDG 13 SDG 16 SDG 16 SDG 8 Number of countries 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Number of 0 30 4 3 5 5 5 30 3 28 The activity of the use of 0.00 86.67 90.00 83.33 83.33 83.33 0.00 90.00 6.67 CSR measures, % Average 0.00 10.24 0.60 0.72 150.96 37.26 0.00 41.00 85.89 Standard deviation 0.00 4.37 0.11 2.15 259.42 45.89 0.00 14.87 19.95 Variation, % 0.00 42.69 17.48 298.45 171.85 123.15 0.00 36.26 23.23 Arithmetic means for the 123.33 8.01 0.59 0.71 87.74 29.49 40.86 43.07 62.19 world Average/best value ratio, 0 78.21 102.05 98.60 58.12 79.14 0.00 95.19 72.40 Source: calculated and compiled by the authors. According to Table 8, the following CSR measures to support the SDGs (UN standards) are implemented in MENA: Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment. The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 75.49%. Guarantee of labour rights (ofﬁcial employment). The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 50.20%. Improvement of treatment systems to reduce environmental pollution. The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 101.69%. Business’s ﬁght against corruption. The level of integration of the SDGs (UN stan- dards) into corporate strategies: 77.56%. Full-scale payment of taxes. The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 35.16%. The systemic integration of the selected SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: (75.49 + 50.20 + 101.69 + 77.56 + 35.16)/5 = 68.02% (high). Gender Gap in Time Spent Doing Unpaid Work (Minutes/Day) Unemployment Rate (% of the Total Labour Force) Fundamental Labour Rights Are Effectively Guaranteed (Worst 0–1 Best) Fatal Work-Related Accidents Embodied in Imports (per 100,000 Population) Production-Based SO Emissions (kg/Capita) Production-Based Nitrogen Emissions (kg/Capita) Carbon Pricing Score at EUR60/tCO (%, WORST 0–100 best) Corruption Perception Index (Worst 0–100 Best) Corporate Tax Haven Score (Best 0–100 Worst) Risks 2022, 10, 117 14 of 27 According to Table 9, the following CSR measures to support the SDGs (UN standards) are implemented in Oceania: Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment. The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies for each of the selected SDGs: 71.65% (high). Table 8. Representation of the CSR practices to support the SDGs (UN standards) in countries of MENA in 2021. SDG 5, SDG 8 SDG 8 SDG 8 SDG 13 SDG 13 SDG 13 SDG 16 SDG 16 SDG 8 Number of countries 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 Number of 0 17 0 9 0 0 0 17 0 15 The activity of the use of 0.00 100.00 47.06 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 11.76 CSR measures, % Average 0.00 10.25 0.47 0.96 50.97 19.38 0.00 37.88 85.59 Standard deviation 0.00 4.96 0.11 1.56 64.64 10.26 0.00 16.94 18.02 Variation, % 0.00 48.34 23.24 162.22 126.81 52.92 0.00 44.71 21.06 Arithmetic means for the 123.33 8.01 0.59 0.71 87.74 29.49 40.86 43.07 62.19 world Average/best value ratio, 0 78.13 80.30 73.64 172.13 152.15 0.00 87.96 72.66 Source: calculated and compiled by the authors. According to Table 10, the following CSR measures to support the SDGs (UN stan- dards) are implemented in the OECD: Provision of gender-neutral jobs and fair wages. The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 71.65%. Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment. The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 87.46%. Guarantee of labour rights. The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 72.27%. Provision of occupational safety and health. The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 79.59%. Improvement of treatment systems to reduce environmental pollution. The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 69.16%. Refusal to include environmental costs in the price. The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 77.87%. Gender Gap in Time Spent Doing Unpaid Work (Minutes/Day) Unemployment Rate (% of the Total Labour Force) Fundamental Labour Rights Are Effectively Guaranteed (Worst 0–1 Best) Fatal Work-Related Accidents Embodied in Imports (per 100,000 Population) Production-Based SO Emissions (kg/Capita) Production-Based Nitrogen Emissions (kg/Capita) Carbon Pricing Score at EUR60/tCO (%, Worst 0–100 Best) Corruption Perception Index (Worst 0–100 Best) Corporate Tax Haven Score (Best 0–100 Worst) Risks 2022, 10, 117 15 of 27 Business’s ﬁght against corruption. The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 92.62%. Full-scale payment of taxes. The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 65.27%. Table 9. Representation of the CSR practices to support the SDGs (UN standards) in countries of Oceania in 2021. SDG 5, SDG 8 SDG 8 SDG 8 SDG 13 SDG 13 SDG 13 SDG 16 SDG 16 SDG 8 Number of countries 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Number of 0 12 6 12 8 8 8 12 9 12 The activity of the use of 0.00 50.00 0.00 33.33 33.33 33.33 0.00 25.00 0.00 CSR measures, % Average 0.00 3.92 0.00 0.20 277.79 14.57 0.00 37.33 0.00 Standard deviation 0.00 2.85 0.00 0.10 246.58 9.12 0.00 8.96 0.00 Variation, % 0.00 72.66 0.00 50.88 88.76 62.61 0.00 24.01 0.00 Arithmetic means for the 123.33 8.01 0.59 0.71 87.74 29.49 40.86 43.07 62.19 world Average/best value ratio, 0 204.42 0.00 351.49 31.58 202.38 0.00 86.68 0.00 Source: calculated and compiled by the authors. The systemic integration of the selected SDGs (UN standards) in corporate strategies: (71.65 + 87.46 + 72.27 + 79.59 + 69.16 + 77.86 + 92.62 + 65.27)/8 = 76.99 (very high). The detailed calculations for each category of countries are given in the pages with the corresponding titles in the Supplementary Materials (Tables S4–S10). Within the second research task, the speciﬁc CSR measures to support the SDGs, which are implemented in the practice of companies in different regions of the world, are identiﬁed through a comparison of the selected practices with the CSR measures from Table 2. The results are shown in Tables 11 and 12. Gender Gap in Time Spent Doing Unpaid Work (Minutes/Day) Unemployment Rate (% of the Total Labour Force) Fundamental Labour Rights Are Effectively Guaranteed (Worst 0–1 Best) Fatal Work-Related Accidents Embodied in Imports (per 100,000 Population) Production-Based SO Emissions (kg/Capita) Production-Based Nitrogen Emissions (kg/Capita) Carbon Pricing Score at EUR60/tCO (%, Worst 0–100 Best) Corruption Perception Index (Worst 0–100 Best) Corporate Tax Haven Score (Best 0–100 Worst) Risks 2022, 10, 117 16 of 27 Table 10. Representation of the CSR practices to support the SDGs (UN standards) in countries of OECD in 2021. SDG 5, SDG 8 SDG 8 SDG 8 SDG 13 SDG 13 SDG 13 SDG 16 SDG 16 SDG 8 Number of countries 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 Number of 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 12 The activity of the use of 78.38 100.00 78.38 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 67.57 CSR measures, % Average 123.33 7.12 0.71 1.19 82.68 45.41 40.86 66.92 59.73 Standard deviation 45.11 3.56 0.13 0.95 64.99 19.32 13.72 15.05 14.41 Variation, % 36.57 49.97 18.47 79.28 78.60 42.55 33.58 22.49 24.13 Arithmetic means for the 123.33 8.01 0.59 0.71 87.74 29.49 40.86 43.07 62.19 world Average/best value ratio, 100.00 112.42 119.95 59.48 106.11 64.94 100.01 155.37 104.12 Source: calculated and compiled by the authors. Table 11. Speciﬁc measures of corporate social responsibility to support the SDGs that are imple- mented in regions of the world. E. Europe Direction East and Indicator of the UN (2021) Africa and C. LAC MENA Oceania OECD of CSR South Asia Asia SDG 5, Provision of gender-neutral jobs and - - - - - - V SDG 8 fair wages Keeping a stable number of jobs or SDG 8 V V V V V V V Responsible increasing it to support employment HRM Guarantee of labour rights (ofﬁcial SDG 8 V V V V V - V employment) Provision of occupational safety and SDG 8 - - - - - - V health Improvement of treatment systems SDG 13 - - - V - V to reduce environmental pollution Responsible production Refusal to include environmental SDG 13 - - - - - - V costs in the price SDG 16 Business’s ﬁght against corruption V V V V V - V Responsible Full-scale payment of taxes (ofﬁcial ﬁnance SDG 16 - V - - V - V business) Source: calculated and compiled by the authors. Gender Gap in Time Spent Doing Unpaid Work (Minutes/Day) Unemployment Rate (% of the Total Labour Force) Fundamental Labour Rights Are Effectively Guaranteed (Worst 0–1 Best) Fatal Work-Related Accidents Embodied in Imports (per 100,000 Population) Production-Based SO Emissions (kg/Capita) Production-Based Nitrogen Emissions (kg/Capita) Carbon Pricing Score at EUR60/tCO (%, Worst 0–100 Best) Corruption Perception Index (Worst 0–100 Best) Corporate Tax Haven Score (Best 0–100 Worst) Risks 2022, 10, 117 17 of 27 According to Table 11, the universal measures of corporate social responsibility that are implemented to support the SDGs (UN standards) are as follows: keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment; guarantee of labour rights (ofﬁcial employment); business’s ﬁght against corruption. Table 12. Speciﬁc CSR measures to support the SDGs and the scale of their implementation in regions of the world. Regularity (Variation) The Use of CSR The Activity of the of Support of the Measures to Support Category of CSR Measures to Support Use of CSR Measures SDGs by Companies the SDGs/the Countries the SDGs to Support the SDGs, through CSR Worldwide Average Measures, % Value Ratio, % Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to 96.97 80.64 95.22 support employment Africa Guarantee of labour rights 63.27 16.56 91.69 (ofﬁcial employment) Business’s ﬁght against 100.00 39.26 75.01 corruption Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to 85.19 52.60 88.49 support employment Guarantee of labour rights E. Europe and C. 59.26 16.84 96.86 (ofﬁcial employment) Asia Business’s ﬁght against 85.19 28.64 87.93 corruption Full-scale payment of taxes 33.33 11.64 96.84 (ofﬁcial business) Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to 100.00 50.75 194.73 support employment East and South Guarantee of labour rights 71.43 22.62 88.68 Asia (ofﬁcial employment) Business’s ﬁght against 100.00 39.48 9.88 corruption Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to 88.67 42.69 78.21 support employment Guarantee of labour rights LAC 90.00 17.48 102.05 (ofﬁcial employment) Business’s ﬁght against 90.00 36.26 95.19 corruption Risks 2022, 10, 117 18 of 27 Table 12. Cont. Regularity (Variation) The Use of CSR The Activity of the of Support of the Measures to Support Category of CSR Measures to Support Use of CSR Measures SDGs by Companies the SDGs/the Countries the SDGs to Support the SDGs, through CSR Worldwide Average Measures, % Value Ratio, % Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to 100.00 48.34 78.13 support employment Guarantee of labour rights 47.06 23.24 80.30 (ofﬁcial employment) MENA Improvement of treatment systems to reduce 100.00 52.92 152.15 environmental pollution Business’s ﬁght against 100.00 44.71 87.96 corruption Full-scale payment of taxes 11.76 21.06 72.66 (ofﬁcial business) Keeping the stable number Oceania of jobs or increasing it to 50.00 72.66 204.42 support employment Provision of gender-neutral 78.38 36.57 100.00 jobs and fair wages Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to 100.00 49.97 112.42 support employment Guarantee of labour rights 78.38 18.47 119.95 (ofﬁcial employment) Provision of occupational 100.00 79.28 59.48 OECD safety and health Improvement of treatment systems to reduce 100.00 42.55 64.94 environmental pollution Refusal to include environmental costs in the 100.00 33.58 100.01 price Business’s ﬁght against 100.00 22.49 155.37 corruption Full-scale payment of taxes 67.57 24.13 104.12 (ofﬁcial business) Source: calculated and compiled by the authors. Within the third task of this research, the goal is to determine the CSR practices that have a statistically signiﬁcant effect on proﬁt. The method of regression analysis is used (according to model (1)) to ﬁnd the dependencies between all factor variables from Table 1 and the targeted result (Table 13). The results of the regression analysis from Table 11 show three-factor variables that are strongly connected to companies’ proﬁt at the signiﬁcance level of 0.05: Gender gap in time spent doing unpaid work (CSR ): p-value is 0.004765. SDG(1) Fundamental labour rights are effectively guaranteed (CSR ): p-value is 0.008483. SDG(3) Carbon Pricing Score at EUR60/tCO (CSR ): p-value is 0.004488. 2 SDG(7) Risks 2022, 10, 117 19 of 27 This means that all other CSR measures to support the SDGs (UN standards) do not affect companies’ proﬁts. Table 13. Regression statistics for all factor variables. Multiple R 0.344616 R-square 0.11876 Adjusted R-square 0.07542 Standard error 17.39419 Observations 193 Analysis of variance df SS MS F Signiﬁcance F Regression 9 7461.657 829.0731 2.740214 0.005033 Residue 183 55,368.07 302.5578 Total 192 62,829.73 Standard Coefﬁcients error t-Stat p-Value Lower 95% Upper 95% Constant 2.81524 3.249766 0.86629 0.387466 9.22706 3.596591 CSR 0.114364 0.040023 2.85747 0.004765 0.035398 0.193329 SDG(1) CSR 0.043308 0.240642 0.179968 0.857377 0.43148 0.518098 SDG(2) CSR 12.53382 4.710172 2.661012 0.008483 3.2406 21.82705 SDG(3) Regression CSR 0.17002 1.282801 0.13254 0.894702 2.70101 2.360959 SDG(4) coefﬁcients of CSR 0.00278 0.008935 0.311144 0.756046 0.01485 0.020409 SDG(5) factor CSR 0.01079 0.060596 0.1781 0.858842 0.13035 0.108764 SDG(6) variables CSR 0.37061 0.128804 2.87731 0.004488 0.62474 0.11648 SDG(7) CSR 0.00578 0.084358 0.06853 0.945438 0.17222 0.160658 SDG(8) CSR 0.06763 0.05411 1.24994 0.212919 0.17439 0.039125 SDG(9) Source: calculated and compiled by the authors. Speciﬁcation of this connection allowed obtaining the following equation of multiple linear regression: SPM = 3.27 + 0.11 CSR + 11.99 CSR 0.43 CSR . SDG(1) SDG(3) SDG(7) According to the equation, the growth of the gender gap in time spent doing unpaid work by 1 minute/day increases companies’ proﬁt by USD 0.11 billion—the effect of CSR on proﬁt, in this case, is negative (the risk of support of the SDGs for proﬁt is high). The growth of the indicator “fundamental labour rights are effectively guaranteed” by 0.1 leads to an increase in shifted proﬁts of multinationals by USD 11.99 billion—the effect of CSR on proﬁt, in this case, is positive (risk of support of the SDGs for proﬁt is low). Growth of Carbon Pricing Score at EUR60/tCO by 1% reduces companies’ proﬁt by USD 0.43 billion—the effect of CSR on proﬁt, in this case, is negative (the risk of support of the SDGs for proﬁt is high). Detailed regression statistics for the obtained model are given in Table 14. The value of the correlation coefﬁcient (0.3292) that was obtained for this equation in Table 12 shows that the change of the targeted result by 32.92% is explained by the selected factor variables (the close connection between the variables). R-square and ad- justed R-square differ insigniﬁcantly (equalling 0.108382 and 0.094229, accordingly), which characterises the considered equation well. 0.5 Signiﬁcance F equals 7.39 10 , and the model has successfully passed the F test; therefore, the equation is correct and reliable at the level of signiﬁcance of 0.01. The conﬁdence interval limits for the regression coefﬁcients are in the range from 0.037795 to 0.19273 (for CSR ), from 3.546769 to 20.43144 (for CSR ), and from 0.64733 to SDG(1) SDG(3) 0.2216 (for CSR ) and are non-contradictory (both limits for each variable have the SDG(7) same sign), which also conﬁrms the reliability of the regression equation. This proves the correctness and reliability of the results obtained and speciﬁes the model (1). Risks 2022, 10, 117 20 of 27 Table 14. Regression statistics for the factor variables that are connected to proﬁt at the signiﬁcance level of 0.05. Multiple R 0.329213 R-square 0.108382 Adjusted R-square 0.094229 Standard error 17.21636 Observations 193 Analysis of variance df SS MS F Signiﬁcance F 0.5 Regression 3 6809.582 2269.861 7.658024 7.39 10 Residue 189 56,020.15 296.4029 Total 192 62,829.73 Coefﬁcients Standard error t-Stat p-Value Lower 95% Upper 95% Constant 3.2755 2.030823 1.61289 0.108437 7.28149 0.730494 Regression CSR 0.115262 0.039272 2.934981 0.003749 0.037795 0.19273 SDG(1) coefﬁcients of CSR 11.98911 4.279812 2.801316 0.005619 3.546769 20.43144 SDG(3) factor CSR 0.43446 0.107911 4.02613 8.2 10 0.64733 0.2216 SDG(7) variables Source: calculated and compiled by the authors. For the systemic reﬂection of the connections of the studied indicators, we compile a structural equation model (Figure 2). For this, an expanded (uniﬁed) sample is formed, which contains the data for 2021 and 2020, due to which the aggregate data array has 386 observations. As shown in Figure 3, the shifted proﬁts of multinationals depend on the factors of responsible HRM, responsible production (corporate environmental responsibility), and responsible ﬁnance, which in their totality determine the targeted outcome (ﬁnancial risk) by 30.13%. Accordingly, the remaining 69.87% are determined by other (residual) factors, which are united in the aggregate error of model (e). The vivid factor variables are interconnected. The connection between responsible HRM and responsible production (corporate environmental responsibility) equals 21.16%, and with responsible ﬁnance—22.40%. The connection between responsible production (corporate environmental responsibility) and responsible ﬁnance is 22.97%. All variables of the structural equation model have their variation (scatter of values: var), which is very high in all cases. For the full consideration and description of the ties between factor variables and the resulting variable and among factor variables, as well as for the better visualisation of data, let us present inter-factor ties—instead of demonstrating them in the structural equation model—separately in the form of the covariance matrix, which reﬂects the cross-correlation of the factor variables (Table 15). The obtained results allowed qualitative (high/low) assessment of the risks of inte- grating the SDGs into corporate strategies for companies’ proﬁt: In Africa, E. Europe and C. Asia, East and South Asia, LAC, and MENA, the only practice of corporate social responsibility that inﬂuences proﬁt is the guarantee of labour rights (ofﬁcial employment)—since the inﬂuence of this practice on proﬁt is positive, the risks of implementing the SDGs for proﬁt are low. In Oceania, the practice of corporate social responsibility to support the SDGs (UN standards) does not inﬂuence companies’ proﬁt (risks for proﬁt are zero, they are absent). In the OECD, the provision of gender-neutral jobs (fair wages) and refusal to include environmental costs in the price reduce proﬁt to a certain extent, but the guarantee of labour rights (ofﬁcial employment) increases proﬁt signiﬁcantly. That is why the systemic inﬂuence of the CSR practices to support the SDGs (UN standards) on the risks for proﬁt is moderate. Risks 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 26 Risks 2022, 10, 117 21 of 27 255.68 Gender gap in time spent doing unpaid work 4.05 78.32 Unemployment rate Responsible 2.91 HRM 236.37 Fatal work-related accidents embodied in 8.22 21.16 imports 189.95 17,348.88 Production-based SO₂ 3.47 Targeted outcome emissions (financial risk): Shifted Responsible profits of multinationals production 22.97 (corporate 108.57 environmental 5.59 69.87 responsibility) Production-based nitrogen emissions 4.48 var 22.40 54.71 Corruption Perception Index 1.41 Responsible finance 177.90 Corporate Tax Haven Score Figure 3. Detailed block diagram of structural equation model. Source: authors. Figure 3. Detailed block diagram of structural equation model. Source: authors. For the full consideration and description of the ties between factor variables and the Table 15. The covariance matrix for the factor variables. resulting variable and among factor variables, as well as for the better visualisation of data, let us present inter-factor ties—instead of demonstrating them in the structural equa- Fatal Gender Gap Production- Work-Related Production- Corruption Corporate tion model—separately in the form of the covariance matrix, which reflects the cross-cor- Cross-Correlation of the in Time Spent Unemployment Based Accidents Based SO Perception Tax Haven Factor Variables Doing Unpaid Rate Nitrogen relation of the factor variables (Table 15). Embodied in Emissions Index Score Work Emissions Imports Gender gap in time spent 1 - - - - - - doing unpaid work Unemployment rate 0.00 1 - - - - - Risks 2022, 10, 117 22 of 27 Table 15. Cont. Fatal Gender Gap Production- Work-Related Production- Corruption Corporate Cross-Correlation of the in Time Spent Unemployment Based Accidents Based SO Perception Tax Haven Factor Variables Doing Unpaid Rate Nitrogen Embodied in Emissions Index Score Work Emissions Imports Fatal work-related accidents embodied in 0.13 0.03 1 - - - - imports Production-based SO 0.02 0.02 0.32 1 - - - emissions Production-based 0.26 0.06 0.67 0.27 1 - - nitrogen emissions Corruption Perception 0.45 0.12 0.25 0.13 0.31 1 - Index Corporate Tax Haven 0.33 0.10 0.33 0.19 0.27 0.42 1 Score Source: authors. 5. Discussion This paper contributes to the development of the theory of integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies by specifying the features of support of the SDGs with the help of CSR in regions of the world, taking into account the risks for proﬁt (Table 16). Table 16. The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies in regions of the world. Level of Integrating the SDGs (UN Standards) into Corporate Strategies, % Category of Supported SDGs CSR Measures to Support the SDGs Countries (UN Standards) In the Aspect of On Average the SDGs Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing 90.94 it to support employment SDG 8 Africa 73.18 Guarantee of labour rights 57.17 SDG 16 Business’s ﬁght against corruption 71.42 Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing 75.43 it to support employment SDG 8 E. Europe and Guarantee of labour rights 57.65 61.90 C. Asia Business’s ﬁght against corruption 67.25 SDG 16 Full-scale payment of taxes 47.27 Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing 115.16 it to support employment SDG 8 East and South 75.29 Guarantee of labour rights 60.91 Asia SDG 16 Business’s ﬁght against corruption 49.79 Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing 69.86 it to support employment SDG 8 LAC 71.17 Guarantee of labour rights 69.84 SDG 16 Business’s ﬁght against corruption 73.82 Risks 2022, 10, 117 23 of 27 Table 16. Cont. Level of Integrating the SDGs (UN Standards) into Corporate Strategies, % Category of Supported SDGs CSR Measures to Support the SDGs Countries (UN Standards) In the Aspect of On Average the SDGs Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing 75.49 it to support employment SDG 8 Guarantee of labour rights 50.20 MENA 68.02 Improvement of treatment systems to reduce SDG 13 101.69 environmental pollution Business’s ﬁght against corruption 77.56 SDG 16 Full-scale payment of taxes 35.16 Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing Oceania SDG 8 109.03 109.03 it to support employment Provision of gender-neutral jobs and fair SDG 5 71.65 wages Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing 87.46 it to support employment SDG 8 Guarantee of labour rights 72.27 OECD 76.99 Provision of occupational safety and health 79.59 Improvement of treatment systems to reduce 69.16 environmental pollution SDG 13 Refusal to include environmental costs in the 77.86 price Business’s ﬁght against corruption 92.62 SDG 16 Full-scale payment of taxes 65.27 Source: calculated and compiled by the authors. This paper ’s contribution to the literature is as follows: SDGs (UN standards) are supported by companies in different regions of the world differently. In Oceania, only SDG 8 is supported through the only measure—keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment. In Africa, E. Europe and C. Asia, East and South Asia, and LAC, only SDG 8 and SDG 16 are supported. SDG 16 is also supported in MENA. In the OECD, all considered SDGs—5, 8, 13, and 16—are supported. This distinguishes this paper from other works with results on the problems of the SDGs: Chanda and Goyal (2020), He and Kim (2021), Hirsu et al. (2021), Rawshdeh et al. (2019), Ramos-González et al. (2021), and Zhao et al. (2021), in which the measures of integrating the SDGs in corporate strategies are considered in their totality and it is assumed that these measures are widely accessible and used in a complex manner by companies around the world. CSR measures to support the SDGs are implemented in the practice of companies with different levels of activity in different regions of the world. In Oceania, the result obtained (109.03%) is predetermined by a small number of implemented measures, in combination with which the level of business’s support of the SDGs in Oceania is qualitatively lower than in other regions of the world, but is still high. The highest level of business’s support of the SDGs is observed in the OECD (76.99%). This is the difference between this paper and the existing works on the topic of the integration of the SDGs in corporate strategies: Dela Cruz et al. (2020), Han and Cao (2021), Panos and Wilson (2020), and Setyowati et al. (2021), which elaborate on the global support for the SDGs and do not take into account the regional speciﬁcs of support for the SDGs in business. Risks 2022, 10, 117 24 of 27 Unlike Battisti et al. (2022), Kong (2022), Kornieieva (2020), Lassala et al. (2021), Martí- Ballester (2020), Medentseva (2017), Muhmad and Muhamad (2021), Petrovskaya et al. (2022), Pizzi et al. (2021), Roy et al. (2022), Rahman (2021), Raithatha and Shaw (2021), Quang et al. (2022), Vagin et al. (2022), and Wentzel et al. (2022), it is proved that the risks of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies for proﬁt are low (moderate in the OECD). The commercial approach to integrating the SDGs into corporate strategies is implemented in all regions of the world. 6. Conclusions The following results were obtained in this paper. First, it was discovered that the SDGs (UN standards) are supported by companies in different regions of the world to a different extent, but, on the whole, they are highly integrated into the corporate strategies in each region. The largest support of the SDGs from business is observed in the OECD. Second, it was proved that the CSR measures to support the SDGs are implemented in the practice of companies with different levels of activity, depending on the region of the world. The universal measures of corporate social responsibility that are implemented to support the SDGs (UN standards) are as follows: keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment; guarantee of labour rights (ofﬁcial employment); business’s ﬁght against corruption. Other measures differ among regions of the world. Third, it was proved that the risks of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies for proﬁt are low (moderate in the OECD). In all regions of the world, the commercial approach to integrating the SDGs into corporate strategies is implemented. The theoretical signiﬁcance of the results obtained consists in the discovered differ- ences showing the necessity for and setting the foundation for the transition from the global to regional management of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) in corporate strategies. This created a wide ﬁeld for new studies of the experience of different regions of the world. The scientiﬁc value of the authors’ conclusions consists in proving the fact that despite the universal (global) formulation of the SDGs, their practical implementation requires the consideration of the speciﬁcs of each region of the world. The commercial approach to integrating the SDGs into corporate strategies is the most widespread approach in practice; thus, it deserves to be thoroughly studied. The practical signiﬁcance of the authors’ conclusions and developments is due to them allowing increasing the effectiveness of managing the risks of the CSR practices for proﬁt. The dependencies discovered with the help of structural equation modelling (SEM) could be a guide for managing the risks for proﬁt during the integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies for proﬁt. The signiﬁcance of the developed concept for society is due to the fact that it provided reliable evidence of low risks for proﬁt during the integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies, thus providing companies with a powerful stimulus to expand the CSR measures in business. It should be acknowledged that the results obtained demonstrated the partial integra- tion of the SDGs into corporate strategies. Therefore, this study made only one of the initial steps on the path to implementing the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The next step should be the development of applied recommendations to ﬁll the gaps in the integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies given the speciﬁcs of each region of the world. Future scientiﬁc works should be devoted to studying perspectives and developing recommendations for the systemic integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies based on the commercial approach and striving to preserve low risks for proﬁt. Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https: //www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/risks10060117/s1. Table S1: Raw Data; Table S2. Raw Data (reg); Table S3. Raw Data (reg SEM); Table S4. Africa; Table S5. E. Europe & C. Asia; Table S6. East & South Asia; Table S7. LAC; Table S8. MENA; Table S9. Oceania; Table S10. OECD; Table S11. Codebook. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.V.B. and S.V.L.; methodology, S.V.L.; investigation, A.V.B.; resources, A.N.A.; data curation, A.N.A.; writing—original draft preparation, S.V.L.; writing— Risks 2022, 10, 117 25 of 27 review and editing, A.V.B. and A.N.A.; visualization, A.N.A.; supervision, A.V.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: Not applicable. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest. References Akbar, Ahsan, Minhas Akbar, Marina Nazir, Petra Poulova, and Samrat Ray. 2021. Does working capital management inﬂuence operating and market risk of ﬁrms? Risks 9: 201. [CrossRef] Akopova, Elena S., Natalia V. Przhedetskaya, Yuri V. Przhedetsky, and Ksenia V. Borzenko, eds. 2020. Marketing of Nonproﬁt Organizations in Business-Oriented Economy: New Challenges and Priorities. Marketing of Healthcare Organizations: Technologies of Public-Private Partnership. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. Ang, Rui, Zhen Shao, Chen Liu, Changhui Yang, and Qingru Zheng. 2022. The relationship between CSR and ﬁnancial performance and the moderating effect of ownership structure: Evidence from Chinese heavily polluting listed enterprises. Sustainable Production and Consumption 30: 117–29. [CrossRef] Batóg, Barbara, and Jacek Batóg. 2021. Regional government revenue forecasting: Risk factors of investment ﬁnancing. Risks 9: 210. [CrossRef] Battisti, Enrico, Niccolò Nirino, Erasmia Leonidou, and Alkis Thrassou. 2022. Corporate venture capital and CSR performance: An extended resource based view’s perspective. Journal of Business Research 139: 1058–66. [CrossRef] Bednarczyk, Teresa H., Ilona Skibinska-Fabr ´ owska, and Anna Szymanska. ´ 2021. An empirical study on the ﬁnancial preparation for retirement of the independent workers for proﬁt in Poland. Risks 9: 160. [CrossRef] Bu, Xuelin, Jacob Cherian, Heesup Han, Ubaldo Comite, Felipe Hernández-Perlines, and Antonio Ariza-Montes. 2022. Proposing Employee Level CSR as an Enabler for Economic Performance: The Role of Work Engagement and Quality of Work-Life. Sustainability 14: 1354. [CrossRef] Casais, Beatriz, Andreia Teixeira, and Cristina Fernandes. 2022. Consumer perception of corporate social responsibility (CSR) through retail brand labels disclosure. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development 13: 290320. [CrossRef] Chanda, Udayan, and Praveen Goyal. 2020. A Bayesian network model on the interlinkage between Socially Responsible HRM, employee satisfaction, employee commitment and organizational performance. Journal of Management Analytics 7: 105–38. [CrossRef] Chu, Jian, and Junxiong Fang. 2021. Economic policy uncertainty and ﬁrms’ labour investment decision. China Finance Review International 11: 73–91. [CrossRef] Dela Cruz, Aeson Luiz, Chris Patel, Sammy Ying, and Peipei Pan. 2020. The relevance of professional skepticism to ﬁnance professionals’ Socially Responsible Investing decisions. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance 26: 100299. [CrossRef] Fontana, Enrico. 2017. Strategic CSR: A panacea for proﬁt and altruism: An empirical study among executives in the Bangladeshi RMG supply chain. European Business Review 29: 304–19. [CrossRef] Gennaro, Alessandro. 2021. Insolvency risk and value maximization: A convergence between ﬁnancial management and risk management. Risks 9: 105. [CrossRef] Hamed, Ruba Subhi, Basiem Khalil Al-Shattarat, Wasim Khalil Al-Shattarat, and Khaled Hussainey. 2022. The impact of introducing new regulations on the quality of CSR reporting: Evidence from the UK. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation 46: 100444. [CrossRef] Han, Xiuyan, and Tianyi Cao. 2021. Study on corporate environmental responsibility measurement method of energy consumption and pollution discharge and its application in industrial parks. Journal of Cleaner Production 326: 129359. [CrossRef] He, Junqian, and Hyosun Kim. 2021. The effect of socially responsible HRM on organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: A proactive motivation model. Sustainability 13: 7958. [CrossRef] Hirsu, Lavinia, Zenaida Quezada-Reyes, and Lamiah Hashemi. 2021. Moving SDG5 forward: Women’s public engagement activities in higher education. Higher Education 81: 51–67. [CrossRef] Jackson, Susan T. 2021. Risking sustainability: Political risk culture as inhibiting ecology-centered sustainability. Risks 9: 186. [CrossRef] Jaisinghani, Dinesh, and Amritjot Kaur Sekhon. 2022. CSR disclosures and proﬁt persistence: Evidence from India. International Journal of Emerging Markets 17: 705–14. [CrossRef] Karagiannis, Ioannis, Panagiotis Vouros, Nikolaos Sioutas, and Konstantinos Evangelinos. 2022. Mapping the maritime CSR agenda: A cross-sectoral materiality analysis of sustainability reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production 338: 130139. [CrossRef] Kaul, Aseem, and Jiao Luo. 2018. An economic case for CSR: The comparative efﬁciency of for-proﬁt ﬁrms in meeting consumer demand for social goods. Strategic Management Journal 39: 1650–77. [CrossRef] Risks 2022, 10, 117 26 of 27 Kong, Gaowen. 2022. Causal effects of corporate taxes on private ﬁrms’ earnings management: A regression discontinuity analysis. China Finance Review International.. ahead-of-print. [CrossRef] Kornieieva, Yuliia. 2020. Non-ﬁnancial reporting challenges in monitoring SDG’s achievement: Investment aspects for transition economy. International Journal of Economics and Business Administration 8: 62–71. [CrossRef] Kuzey, Cemil, Morgane M. C. Fritz, Ali Uyar, and Abdullah S. Karaman. 2022. Board gender diversity, CSR strategy, and eco-friendly initiatives in the transportation and logistics sector. International Journal of Production Economics 247: 108436. [CrossRef] Lassala, Carlos, Maria Orero-Blat, and Samuel Ribeiro-Navarrete. 2021. The ﬁnancial performance of listed companies in pursuit of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja 34: 427–49. [CrossRef] Liu, Jingshan. 2021. Impact of uncertainty on foreign exchange market stability: Based on the LT-TVP-VAR model. China Finance Review International 11: 53–72. [CrossRef] Loor-Zambrano, Halder Yandry, Luna Santos-Roldán, and Beatriz Palacios-Florencio. 2022. Relationship CSR and employee commit- ment: Mediating effects of internal motivation and trust. European Research on Management and Business Economics 28: 100185. [CrossRef] Martí-Ballester, Carmen-Pilar. 2020. Financial performance of SDG mutual funds focused on biotechnology and healthcare sectors. Sustainability 12: 2032. [CrossRef] Medentseva, Evgenia V. 2017. The Legal Forms of Economic Relations and Their Transformation in the Modern Economic Conditions: Part Two: Legal Foundations of Corporate Control over the Financial and Economic Activities of Commercial Organizations in the Modern Economic Conditions. Economic and Legal Foundations of Modern Russian Society. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. Mochales, Gerardo, and Javier Blanch. 2022. Unlocking the potential of CSR: An explanatory model to determine the strategic character of CSR activities. Journal of Business Research 140: 310–23. [CrossRef] Muhmad, Siti Nurain, and Rusnah Muhamad. 2021. Sustainable business practices and ﬁnancial performance during pre- and post-SDG adoption periods: A systematic review. Journal of Sustainable Finance and Investment 11: 291–309. [CrossRef] Panos, Georgios A., and John O. S. Wilson. 2020. Financial literacy and responsible ﬁnance in the FinTech era: Capabilities and challenges. European Journal of Finance 26: 297–301. [CrossRef] Petrovskaya, Maria V., Vladimir Z. Chaplyuk, Raju Mohammad Kamrul Alam, Md. Nazmul Hossain, and Ahmad S. Al Humssi. 2022. COVID 19 and Global Economic Outlook. Current Problems of the World Economy and International Trade. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, vol. 42. Pizzi, Simone, Francesco Rosati, and Andrea Venturelli. 2021. The determinants of business contribution to the 2030 Agenda: Introducing the SDG Reporting Score. Business Strategy and the Environment 30: 404–21. [CrossRef] Quang, Phung Thanh, Ehsan Rasoulinezhad, Nguyen Nhat Linh, and Doan Phuong Thao. 2022. Investigating the determining factors of sustainable FDI in Vietnam. China Finance Review International. [CrossRef] Rahman, Md. Lutfur. 2021. Institutional ownership and violations of mandatory CSR regulation. Economics Letters 206: 109967. [CrossRef] Raithatha, Mehul, and Tara Shankar Shaw. 2021. Firm’s tax aggressiveness under mandatory CSR regime: Evidence after mandatory CSR regulation of India. International Review of Finance 22: 286–94. [CrossRef] Ramos-González, María del Mar, Mercedes Rubio-Andrés, and Miguel Ángel Sastre-Castillo. 2021. Effects of Socially Responsible Human Resource Management (SR-HRM) on Innovation and Reputation in Entrepreneurial SMEs. Available online: https: //link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11365-020-00720-8 (accessed on 22 May 2022). Rawshdeh, Zainab Ali, Zaﬁr Khan Mohamed Makhbul, Najeeb Ullah Shah, and Perengki Susanto. 2019. Impact of perceived socially responsible-hrm practices on employee deviance behavior. International Journal of Business and Management Science 9: 447–66. Roy, Partha P., Sandeep Rao, and Min Zhu. 2022. Mandatory CSR expenditure and stock market liquidity. Journal of Corporate Finance 72: 102158. [CrossRef] Schramm-Klein, Hanna, Dirk Morschett, and Bernhard Swoboda. 2015. Retailer corporate social responsibility: Shedding light on CSR’s impact on proﬁt of intermediaries in marketing channels. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management 43: 403–31. [CrossRef] Setyowati, Arum, Nasyiah Hasanah Purnomowati, Dinar Sari, and Endan Ramadhan. 2021. Does corporate environmental responsi- bility affect investor future goal in the energy sector ﬁrms? IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 905: 012140. [CrossRef] Shayan, Niloufar Fallah, Nasrin Mohabbati-Kalejahi, Sepideh Alavi, and Mohammad Ali Zahed. 2022. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Sustainability 14: 1222. [CrossRef] Sinkovics, Noemi, Rudolf R. Sinkovics, and Jason Archie-Acheampong. 2021. The business responsibility matrix: A diagnostic tool to aid the design of better interventions for achieving the SDGs. Multinational Business Review 29: 1–20. [CrossRef] Song, Baobao, and Weiting Tao. 2022. Unpack the relational and behavioral outcomes of internal CSR: Highlighting dialogic communication and managerial facilitation. Public Relations Review 48: 102153. [CrossRef] Trzeciak, Mateusz. 2021. Sustainable risk management in it enterprises. Risks 9: 135. [CrossRef] UN. 2021. The Sustainable Development Report 2021 and Supplementary Materials: Database. Available online: https://dashboards. sdgindex.org/downloads (accessed on 19 April 2022). Vagin, Sergei G., Elena I. Kostyukova, Natalia E. Spiridonova, and Tatiana M. Vorozheykina. 2022. Financial Risk Management Based on Corporate Social Responsibility in the Interests of Sustainable Development. Risks 10: 35. [CrossRef] Risks 2022, 10, 117 27 of 27 Waheed, Abdul, and Qingyu Zhang. 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: 837–55. [CrossRef] Wang, Yizhi, Brian Lucey, Samuel Alexandre Vigne, and Larisa Yarovaya. 2022. An index of cryptocurrency environmental attention (ICEA). China Finance Review International. ahead-of-print. [CrossRef] Wentzel, Lance, Julius Ayodeji Fapohunda, and Rainer Haldenwang. 2022. The Relationship between the Integration of CSR and Sustainable Business Performance: Perceptions of SMEs in the South African Construction Industry. Sustainability 14: 1049. [CrossRef] Xie, Kefan, Shufan Zhu, and Ping Gui. 2022. A Game-Theoretic Approach for CSR Emergency Medical Supply Chain during COVID-19 Crisis. Sustainability 14: 1315. [CrossRef] Zhang, Qian, Bee Lan Oo, and Benson Teck Heng Lim. 2022. Linking corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices and organizational performance in the construction industry: A resource collabouration network. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 179: 106113. [CrossRef] Zhang, Shuang, Song Xi Chen, and Lei Lu. 2021. Inference for variance risk premium. China Finance Review International 11: 26–52. [CrossRef] Zhao, Hongdan, Qiongyao Zhou, Peixu He, and Cuiling Jiang. 2021. How and When Does Socially Responsible HRM Affect Employees’ Organizational Citizenship Behaviors Toward the Environment? Journal of Business Ethics 169: 371–85. [CrossRef]

http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png

Risks Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/multidisciplinary-digital-publishing-institute/the-concept-of-corporate-social-responsibility-based-on-integrating-5OgDWauGCA

The Concept of Corporate Social Responsibility Based on Integrating the SDGs into Corporate Strategies: International Experience and the Risks for Profit

Loading next page...

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Copyright: © 1996-2022 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated Disclaimer The statements, opinions and data contained in the journals are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy
ISSN: 2227-9091
DOI: 10.3390/risks10060117
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Journal

Risks – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Published: Jun 2, 2022

Keywords: corporate social responsibility (CSR); integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies; risks for profit; regions of the world

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Concept of Corporate Social Responsibility Based on Integrating the SDGs into Corporate Strategies: International Experience and the Risks for Profit

The Concept of Corporate Social Responsibility Based on Integrating the SDGs into Corporate Strategies: International Experience and the Risks for Profit

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Concept of Corporate Social Responsibility Based on Integrating the SDGs into Corporate Strategies: International Experience and the Risks for Profit

The Concept of Corporate Social Responsibility Based on Integrating the SDGs into Corporate Strategies: International Experience and the Risks for Profit

References

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies