Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rero20

The role of environmental social and governance

in achieving sustainable development goals:
evidence from ASEAN countries

Muhammad Sadiq, Thanh Quang Ngo, Adamu Abdurrahman Pantamee,

Khurshid Khudoykulov, Truong Thi Ngan & Luc Phan Tan

To cite this article: Muhammad Sadiq, Thanh Quang Ngo, Adamu Abdurrahman Pantamee,
Khurshid Khudoykulov, Truong Thi Ngan & Luc Phan Tan (2023) The role of environmental
social and governance in achieving sustainable development goals: evidence from
ASEAN countries, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 36:1, 170-190, DOI:
10.1080/1331677X.2022.2072357

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2072357

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa Published online: 18 May 2022.

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Submit your article to this journal Article views: 5726

View related articles View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 25 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rero20
ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAŽIVANJA
2023, VOL. 36, NO. 1, 170–190
https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2072357

The role of environmental social and governance

in achieving sustainable development goals:
evidence from ASEAN countries
Muhammad Sadiqa
, Thanh Quang Ngob,g , Adamu Abdurrahman Pantameec,
Khurshid Khudoykulovd , Truong Thi Ngane and Luc Phan Tanf
a
School of Accounting and Finance, Faculty of Business and Law, Taylor’s University, Subang Jaya,
Malaysia; bSchool of Government, University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City (UEH), Ho Chi Minh
City, Vietnam; cEconomics, Taylor’s University, Subang Jaya, Malaysia; dDepartment of Finance,
Doctor of Science in Economics, Tashkent State University of Economics, Tashkent, Uzbekistan;
e
Faculty of Business Administration, Van Lang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; fFaculty of
Economics, Thu Dau Mot University, Binh Duong, Vietnam; gResearch Group Public Governance and
Developmental Issues, University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City (UEH), Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Recently, sustainable development goals (SDGs) have become an Received 21 February 2022
international requirement that needs to be achieved and requires Accepted 25 April 2022
the focus of recent literature and regulation authorities. Thus, the
KEYWORDS
current article investigates the impact of environmental, social, and
Sustainable development
governance (ESG) and economic growth on the SDG of ASEAN goals; ASEAN countries;
countries. The current study has extracted secondary data from environmental social and
secondary sources such as SDGs reports and world development governance; eco-
indicators (WDI) from 1986 to 2020. The present study has used nomic growth
the Panel Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) to test the linkage
among the variables. The results highlighted that the environmen- JEL CODES
tal score, social score, governance score, and economic growth Q00; Q01; Q56
positively associated with the ASEAN countries’ SDGs. The current
article provides help to new researchers while conducting research
on achieving SDGs and guides policymakers while establishing pol-
icies regarding achieving the SDGs through ESG.

1. Introduction
The consistent rapid increase in the industrialized and service sectors’ activities have
put an immense pressure on the environment, natural resources, and social beings.
Although this is one of a big issue, the involvement of individuals or organizations in
social or ecological friendly work is limited (Schroeder et al., 2019). Awareness among
the public about the environmental and social impacts of economic activities has
been increasing, including the government and business organization that paid

CONTACT Truong Thi Ngan ngan.tt@vlu.edu.vn

School of Finance and Accounting, Fuzhou University of International Studies and Trade, Fujian, P. R. China. Email:
muhammad.sadiq@taylors.edu.my
ß 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.
 ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAŽIVANJA 171

attention to goals other than financial profits, such as the goals committed to envir-
onmental protection and social development (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2020). In 2015, an
agenda was specially designed and introduced by the United Nations (UN) general
assembly for sustainable development by 2030. The agenda included the 17
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 objectives. The prescribed 17 goals
are in three categories: social, environmental, and economic sustainability and five Ps
like planet, people, peace, prosperity, and partnership (Herrero et al., 2021; Suryanto
et al., 2021). The SDGs for such conditions or context can lead the country towards
sustainable development along with resource availability, efficient resources consump-
tion, joint prosperity, and a healthy work environment. One of the aims of SGDs
introduction is to promote an innovative and people-oriented sustainable economy
that assures employment and high living standards. It focuses on the health of all liv-
ing creatures, including humans, the prosperity of human beings, and the eternity of
economic growth (Di Vaio et al., 2020; Trung et al., 2021).
E environmental, social, and Governance (ESG) is the set of standards designed to
evaluate and regulate the environmental, social, and corporate performance of busi-
ness firms. It is the way to evaluate the firms’ conscientiousness or sense of responsi-
bility towards social welfare, environmental protection, and economic progress
(Escrig-Olmedo et al., 2019). It is not only the analysis or monitoring of conscien-
tiousness of the firms but also the effectiveness of the policies made in this regard.
SDGs declared in the sustainability agenda 2030 by the UN assembly are intercon-
nected and dependent on environmental, social, and corporate governance (Khaled
et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2021). SDGs for the country are achieved through the aggre-
gate efforts of all business organizations, firms, or corporations to protect the envir-
onment from pollution, improve social wellbeing through favorable relations and
developmental work for society members, and increase corporate performance
(Consolandi et al., 2020; Rojek-Adamek, 2021; Vveinhardt & Sroka, 2021). When the
individual business organizations or organizations in collaboration have the conscien-
tiousness and follow the regulations to mitigate the negative environmental influences
of their activities, such as clean sanitation system, provision of clean water, a clean
climate, good health, human wellbeing, protection of natural resources, and so on
(Nurwani et al., 2020; Pashkevich & Haftor, 2020; Saetra, 2021). Similarly, the assess-
ment and governance of the social performance of the firms encourage the attainment
of SDGs, which are aimed at the long-term progress of the country. The policies and
activities of the firms to maintain healthy and sound relationships with the stakehold-
ers to protect their rights and benefit themselves from these connections facilitate the
achievement of SDGs (Betti et al., 2018; Drebee et al., 2020; Piligrimien_e et al., 2021).
This study examines the role of ESG scores in determining the country’s capacity
to achieve SDGs with evidence from 10 ASEAN countries, including Brunei,
Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand, Singapore,
and Vietnam. SDG Indicators Baseline Report 2020, launched by ASEAN, shows all
ASEAN member states’ progress in achieving the SDGs through the social, environ-
mental, and economic performance indicators (Jelaca et al., 2020; Ma’ruf & Aryani,
2019; Mahmood et al., 2021). According to this report on December 2020, the first
SDG, no poverty, has been achieved by ASEAN countries, with the reduction in the
172 M. SADIQ ET AL.

proportion of the population living under the poverty line from 14.8% in 2016 to
13.0% in 2018 in urban areas while from 20.1% in 2016 to 18.0% in 2018 in rural areas
(Ahmad et al., 2019; Hu et al., 2021). There is an improvement in the ninth goal,
industry, innovation, and infrastructure in ASEAN countries which was indicated by
the rise in the employment rate from 11.6% in 2016 to 12.6%, while in 2018, the
mobile network employment rose from 75.1% in 2016 to 78.6% in 2018. Additionally,
the ASEAN countries achieved the 17th SDG, Partnership for the Goals, with the
improvement in its fiscal capacity to attain revenues in 2020 (Al Mamun et al., 2021;
Iqbal et al., 2020; Lassala et al., 2021). With high social development through significant
improvements, ASEAN countries achieveed the fourth and fifth goals, gender equality
and quality education. This is indicated by the 10% annual increase in the proportion
of trained and qualified teachers and a 4% annual increase in the female proportion at
managerial seats in 2020 (Pop et al., 2021; Sharma, 2020; Symaco & Tee, 2019).
Although ASEAN countries collectively achieved SDGs on account of some eco-
nomic and social indicators, there are still many negative trends in the context of
environmental indicators. For example, as far as the 13th goal, climate action, is asso-
ciated, the rate of missing persons, affected persons, and deaths because of climate-
related disaster is still high. The number of persons affected by climate disasters
climbed from 2,281 in 2017 to 3,522 per 0.1 million population in 2018 (Albu &
Albu, 2021; Khan et al., 2019; Vveinhardt & Sroka, 2020). In the 15th SDG, promo-
tion of sustainable land ecosystem, the struggle to protect the regional forests is a
total disappointment as the number of areas covering natural forests as a proportion
of total land area has been decreasing annually from 44.8% to 43.8% in 2018
(Miceikiene et al., 2021; Qureshi et al., 2020; Ziolo et al., 2020). ; Though efforts have
been made for the energy transition, the 7th goal in SDGs, the results are still unsatis-
factory. Despite renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and hydropower being
introduced into the regions, their distribution or consumption is not efficient or
effective. ASEAN countries have shown decreased renewable energy consumption
from 22.6% in 2016 to 20.6% in 2018 (Belas & Cepel, 2020; Mikołajczak, 2021;
Murshed et al., 2021). Although the 10 ASEAN countries progressively work for the
achievement of SDGs proposed by the UN assembly in the sustainability agenda for
2030, its progress is still far away. The progress that the ASEAN countries collectively
make for the achievement of SDGs in the contexts of social and economic indicators
is minor, but it is not enough to attain maximum goals out of the 17 SGDs. The
ASEAN countries’ progress in environmental indicators is nothing but a disappoint-
ment; rather, the environmental performance of ASEAN countries is far less showing
negative rate over the years. The weak efforts for environmental performance are a
prominent hurdle in the way to achieving the SDGs (Bernardelli et al., 2021;
Chapman et al., 2018; G orska & Mazurek, 2021; Streimikien_e & Ahmed, 2021b).
Because of the low speed of ASEAN countries on the road to the achievement of
SGDs, which have the essence of survival and sustainable progress of the country, the
authors want to focus on the possible ways to gain SDG. The study’s objective is to
examine the influences of ESG dimensions like environmental governance, social gov-
ernance, corporate governance, and economic growth on the achievement of SDGs.
This study is a great extension of the literature, for several reasons: (1) Though the
 ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAŽIVANJA 173

attainment of SDGs has been a favorite topic of research and discussion among schol-
ars and academics, this study goes to the peak to deal with SDGs from all possible
aspects; (2) ESG is a recent developmental concept that scholars or researchers have
addressed as a complete term for sustainable development; hence, this study is a great
contribution to the literature as it explores the three dimensions of ESG like environ-
mental governance, social governance, and corporate governance to examine the
achievement of SDGs; (3) Mostly, the research studies written about the attainment
of SDGs focus only on the environmental indicators, and some of the studies have
looked at both social and environmental indicators to achieve SDGs. Our study
makes a distinction by elaborating all the environmental, social, and economic indica-
tors to achieve the SDGs; (4) The relationship between ESG dimensions such as
environmental governance, social governance, and corporate governance along with
economic growth with the achievement of SDGs has mostly been addressed with evi-
dence from one or two countries. This extends the literature with the analysis of ESG
dimensions of environmental governance, social governance, and corporate govern-
ance, along with economic growth with relation to SDGs’ achievement.
The current study contains third systematic parts: The first part examines the rela-
tion among ESG dimensions like environmental governance, social governance, and
corporate governance along with economic growth and the achievement of SDGs
through the lens of the authors’ literary arguments in other words. The second part
describes the ways adopted to collect data and analyze the validity of the relationship
proposed by the study. Finally, in the third part, the study results are compared and
supported by previous studies. The paper ends with the study’s significance, conclu-
sions, and limitations.

2. Literature review
Simple economic growth determines the country’s position in the international mar-
ket, but sustainable development is for maintaining this position across the countries.
Sustainable development is not only meant for economic growth but also lead to
resource abundance and high quality, healthy living creature, and social prosperity
within the country (Caiado et al., 2018; Farelnik et al., 2021; Streimikien_e & Ahmed,
2021a). The 17 SDGs proposed by the UN general assembly not only improve but
also sustains the improved economic development along with a prosperous and
healthy public. The 17 SDGs are categorized into social, environmental, and eco-
nomic development. The ESG score, which contains the standards to evaluate and
regulate the social, environmental, and corporate performance of the particular firms,
improves the social, environmental, and corporate performance of the business enter-
prises and is helpful to gain all the 17 prescribed SDGs (Allen et al., 2018; Al-Refaie
et al., 2020; Hussain et al., 2021). This study examines the role of ESG dimensions
like environmental governance, social governance, and corporate governance together
with economic growth in achieving the SDGs. The impacts of ESG dimensions like
environmental governance, social governance, and corporate governance, and eco-
nomic growth on the achievement of SDGs have a dominant place in the literature.
The recent study examines the relationship among ESG dimensions like
174 M. SADIQ ET AL.

environmental governance, social governance, and corporate governance and eco-

nomic growth and the achievement of SDGs in the light of previous literature.
Environmental governance is one of the dimensions of ESG, and it helps encour-
age the investment and efforts of business organizations to improve the environmen-
tal performance so that the SGDs related to the quality and its outcomes can be
achieved (Mahmood et al., 2021; Roscoe et al., 2019). Environmental governance
refers to the formation and execution of the rules and regulations for environmental
protection from the negative impact of economic activities undertaken by the busi-
ness enterprises and the evaluation of environmental performance regularly. Under
ESG execution, the business enterprises focus on raising the marketing and profitabil-
ity and give equal importance to the public environmental concerns and the mitiga-
tion of environmental impacts. Thus, the SDGs such as clean water and sanitation,
affordable clean energy, climate action, life on land, life below water, and good health
of people can be attained (Vega-Mu~ noz et al., 2021). An academic article was written
by Vollmer et al. (2021) to analyze the impact of environmental governance and the
achievement of the sixth SDG, clean water and sanitation, and third SDG, good
health. The Freshwater Health Index analysis was performed in three different river
basins, namely Guandu, Alto Mayom, and Bogota in Latin America. Environmental
governance is measured with a 0-100 scale through data from perception-based sur-
veys administered to stakeholders. The findings revealed that when the business firms
have the policy to carry ecological friendly production processes and have effective
waste management, the toxic waste is minimum or disposed properly and thus, do
not pollute the water after getting mixed in the water. Thus, the environmental gov-
ernance maintain the quality of water and does not damage the health of people.
Pahl-Wostl et al. (2018) states that it becomes easier for the country to achieve max-
imum interrelated goals under the SDGs agenda when business organizations or insti-
tutions conduct their operations in such a way as to reduce the negative impacts of
their operations on environmental quality, including all environmental elements such
as land, air, water, plants, and living creatures. Thus, the current study hypno-
tized that:
H1: Environmental governance has a positive association with SDGs in
ASEAN countries.
ESG dimension, social governance within the business organizations enhance the
organizations’ share to the country’s achievement of SDGs (Siakwah et al., 2020).
Social governance refers to the rules and regulations which business organizations
apply to improve relations with the stakeholders and take care of their rights, well-
being, and prosperity while undertaking business activities. Social governance is useful
for both the business organizations and the stakeholders who are ultimately the part
of the public whose prosperity, living standard, wellbeing, and rights are the major
concern of the SDGs. So, effective corporate governance under ESG assists in achiev-
ing the SDGs (Criado-Gomis et al., 2020; Li et al., 2018). The investigation of De
Guimar~aes et al. (2020) was an approach towards SDG achievement with the analysis
of social governance and quality of life within the smart cities. It is quantitative
research with descriptive nature through a survey administered to 829 inhabitants of
a region of Northeast Brazil. For analysis, multivariate data techniques with SEM
 ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAŽIVANJA 175

methodology were used. In smart cities where the social governance through effective
communication and information system is high, the quality of life increases as the
employers know and can meet the basic needs of the employees and thus, motivate
them for effective working and raising their standard of living. Social governance
assists to achieve the SDGs including industry, decent work, no poverty, zero hunger,
good heath, and improved wellbeing. The research of Xue et al. (2018), investigated
the social governance within business organizations and their role in the SDGs
achievement. Evidence was collected from enterprises operating in the Chinese econ-
omy. The results highlighted that under the evaluation and regulation of social gov-
ernance, the management formulates its policies to refine its relations with the
employees responsible for operating the business activities. These policies may include
the practices like smooth communication to employees, encouraging them to express
their thoughts, providing them emotional and financial support, training them for
better performance, and taking care of their health. These practices facilitate the
SDGs proposed by UN member in China. Through empirical research, Menton et al.
(2020) examined the influences of social governance at the organization level and its
impact on SDGs goals introduced by the UN as 2030 agenda for sustainable develop-
ment. Social governance in business enterprises is meant for the diversity among the
employees, provision of due rights to the stakeholders, consumer protection, and
environmental protection. The study posited that when business enterprises follow
the laws and regulations specially designed for the encouragement of effective social
relations with the stakeholders, all the business decisions are made, and business
activities are performed with a great sense of responsibility towards the stakeholders
without affecting their health, economic rights, and emotions. This opens the door to
success for organizations themselves and assures good health and well-being of the
stakeholders along with equal rights. Thus, the current study has developed the fol-
lowing hypothesis:
H2: Social governance has a positive association with SDGs in ASEAN countries.
Corporate governance is one of the three dimensions of ESG, whose effective
implementation encourages the achievement of SDGs (Dahlmann et al., 2019).
Corporate governance is a set of regulations, methods, processes, and relationships
employed by various parties to control, manage, and operate a business. The rules
and procedures for making decisions in corporate affairs are identified in governance
structures and principlesincluding the distribution of rights and duties among differ-
ent stakeholders of the corporation (such as shareholders, the board of directors,
managers, regulators, creditors, auditors, and other stakeholders). Corporate govern-
ance is required because of the likelihood of conflicts of interest between stakehold-
ers, shareholders, and top management (Naciti, 2019). A study conducted by
Martınez-Ferrero and Garcıa-Meca (2020) investigated the effectiveness of internal
corporate governance as a determinant of a firm’s share to the achievement of SDGs
proposed by the UN. With the European sample for 2016-2017, the study examined
board composition, board attendance, and CEO independence as internal corporate
governance elements affecting the firm’s commitment to SDGs. By using several
regression analyses, the findings revealed that higher internal corporate governance
effectiveness enhances the firms’ strength to show SDGs in sustainability reports. The
176 M. SADIQ ET AL.

results showed a positive link between internal corporate governance and SDGs
achievement. A study by Pizzi et al. (2021) identified the determinants of business
contribution to the 2030 Agenda containing 17 SDGs. The analysis sample for this
research contains the non-financial reports of 153 Public Interest Entities in Italy.
The study suggested that under effective corporate governance, different departments
of the business organization are effectively managed with effective board size, board
membership, board independence, effective organizational structure, and organiza-
tional climate. The effectively implemented corporate governance, which is a part of
ESG, improves financial progress and improves the social and ecological friendly per-
formance of the concerned enterprises. Thus, the current study hypnotized that:
H3: Corporate governance has a positive association with SDGs in ASEAN countries.
Dantas et al. (2021) research was about the role of economic growth, circular econ-
omy, and industry 4.0 in achieving SDGs. The data for the research was acquired
from previous articles with the help of the software Zotero v5.0. Four types of studies,
like case studies, review articles, methodological development, and mixed study on
economic growth, circular economy, and industry 4.0 in achieving SDGs, were
inspected for quantitative analysis. The study posited that economic growth, circular
economy, and industry 4.0 had a positive association with SDGs. The authors argued
that when there is high economic growth, the business enterprises themselves can
come up with different ecological friendly programs like sharing economy, energy
efficiency, and applying environmentally friendly technologies. These practices on the
part of business enterprises assure the SDGs in the country. An article by Blagov and
Petrova-Savchenko (2021) focused on the impacts of economic growth on SDG
achievement. This study implied that in countries with high economic growth, fast
progress is there in the technological field, bringing innovation in infrastructure,
transportation, communication network, and production activities. Hence, the eco-
nomic growth helped achieve the ninth SDG, industry, innovation, and infrastructure.
Shahbaz et al. (2021) emphasized the SDGs achievement in a high economic growth
rate. When the economy grows rapidly, the output of products and services inside
the economy tends to increase. A huge labor force is necessary to carry out the
increasing productive activity. This creates job opportunities and raises employees’
living standards through increasing employment, pay, and bonuses. As a result, the
increased growth rate aids in the achievement of SDGs such as ending poverty and
hunger. The empirical research by Sinha et al. (2020), paid attention to economic
growth that contributed to the achievement of SDGs with evidence from educational
institutions of selected 11 economies. They found that in the period of high economic
growth, educational institutions, like other economic sectors, bring innovation in the
educational management, teaching methods, and sources of learning to provide
improved education to students. Moreover, in the country growing fast, education
policies are designed to provide education without male or female distinction and
facilitate education in rural and urban areas. This way, economic growth facilitates
the achievement of SDGs related to education, equality, and rural progress. Thus, the
current study has developed the following hypothesis:
H4: Economic growth has a positive association with SDGs in ASEAN countries.
 ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAŽIVANJA 177

Table 1. Variables with measurements.

S# Variables Measurement Sources
01 Sustainable Development Goals SDG Index SDG Report
02 Environmental Social and Governance Environmental score out of hundred WDI
Social score out of hundred WDI
Governance score out of hundred WDI
03 Economic Growth GDP growth (annual percentage) WDI
Source: WDI & SDG report.

3. Research methods
The article investigates the impact of ESG and economic growth on the SDG of the
ASEAN countries. The current study has extracted secondary data from secondary
sources such as SDGs reports and WDI from 1986 to 2020. The present study used the
Panel ARDL to test the linkage among the variables. The study equation is given as:

SDGI it ¼ a0 þ b1 ESit þ b2 SSit þ b3 GSit þ b4 EGit þ þ eit (1)

Where;
SDGI ¼ SDG Indexi ¼ Countryt ¼ Time Period
ES ¼ Environmental Score
SS ¼ Social Score
GS ¼ Governance Score
EG ¼ Economic Growth
The current article has taken the SDG as the dependent variable and measured it as
the SDG index. In addition, the current study has also used the ESG as the independent
variable measured as the environmental, social, and governance scores. Finally, the cur-
rent article has also used economic growth as the control variable and was measured as
GDP growth (annual percentage). Table 1 highlights the variables and measurements.
Using descriptive statistics, the current research examines the mean, maximum val-
ues, standard deviation, minimum values, and observation. In addition, the researchers
also checked the correlation among the understudy constructs using a correlation
matrix. Moreover, the current article also examines the stationarity using Augmented
Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test. The standard for the ADF test is that if the probability value
is lower than 0.05, then the variable is stationary at the level and vice versa. But if the
probability value is lower than 0.05 at the first difference, then the variable is stationary
at the first difference and vice versa. The equation is given as below for the ADF test:
dðYt Þ ¼ a0 þ bt þ YYt1 þ dðYt ð1ÞÞ þ Ɛt (2)
In addition, the characteristic of the ADF test is that it checks the stationarity of
the constructs individually. Thus, the equation for each variable is mentioned below:
SDG Index (SDGI)
dðSDGI t Þ ¼ a0 þ bt þ YSDGI t1 þ dðSDGI t ð1ÞÞ þ Ɛt (3)
Environmental Score (ES)
dðESt Þ ¼ a0 þ bt þ YESt1 þ dðESt ð1ÞÞ þ Ɛt (4)
178 M. SADIQ ET AL.

Social Score (SS)

dðSSt Þ ¼ a0 þ bt þ YSSt1 þ dðSSt ð1ÞÞ þ Ɛt (5)

Governance Score (GS)

dðGSt Þ ¼ a0 þ bt þ YGSt1 þ dðGSt ð1ÞÞ þ Ɛt (6)

Economic Growth (EG)

dðEGt Þ ¼ a0 þ bt þ YEGt1 þ dðEGt ð1ÞÞ þ Ɛt (7)

The current study has more than thirty years under observation which show the
study can use the time series estimations. Thus, the stationarity test exposed that
Panel ARDL is appropriate for the study. In addition, both ‘pooled mean group’
(PMG) and ‘mean group’ (MG) estimators could be used, but the best method should
be adopted by the researchers using the Hausman test. Thus, the Hausman test has
been used to select the best estimator among PMG and MG. The standard rule is
that if the probability value is larger than 0.05, the PMG model is suitable and vice
versa. The equation given below is related to the Hausman test.

H ¼ ðb1  b0 Þ ðVar ðb0 Þ  Var ðb1 ÞÞ ðb1  b0 Þ (8)

The Hausman test exposed that the PMG panel model is appropriate. In addition,
it is also an appropriate estimation when variables are integrated at ‘1(0) or 1(1) but
not 1(2)’. Moreover, it is also the best estimation for small samples (Sharif et al.,
2020) as the researchers have used only 350 observations. It also provides short and
long-run results. The PMG panel ARDL equation is given as below:
X X X
DSDGI it ¼ a0 þ d1 DSDGI it1 þ d2 DESit1 þ d3 DSSit1
X X
þ d4 DGSit1 þ d5 DEGit1 þ u1 SDGI it1 þ u2 ESit1 þ u3 SSit1
þ u4 GSit1 þ u5 EGit1 þ Ɛit
(9)

4. Study results
The current article has run the descriptive statistics showing country-wise data varia-
bles. The figures highlighted that the minimum value of SDGI was 60.252 in Brunei,
while the maximum value of SDGI was 77.242 in Vietnam. The statistics also high-
lighted that the minimum value of ES was 63.445 in the Philippines, while the max-
imum value of ES was 77.924 in Malaysia. The figures also exposed that the
minimum value of SS was 66.564 in Brunei, while the maximum value of SS was
79.002 in Singapore. In addition, the figures highlighted that the minimum value of
GS was 66.302 in Brunei while the maximum value of GS was 78.093 in Singapore.
 ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAŽIVANJA 179

Table 2. Descriptive statistics (Country).

Countries SDGI ES SS GS EG
Brunei 60.252 67.993 66.564 66.302 3.415
Cambodia 62.201 68.093 67.009 67.823 4.726
Indonesia 64.092 66.983 68.993 67.094 4.982
Laos 66.092 67.252 61.023 67.463 3.234
Malaysia 75.732 77.924 74.773 77.983 6.832
Myanmar 70.342 71.252 68.309 71.276 5.723
Philippines 69.098 63.455 66.733 68.734 6.823
Singapore 82.092 78.665 79.002 78.093 9.735
Thailand 76.922 77.774 72.762 70.922 7.535
Vietnam 77.242 75.645 71.027 70.998 8.242
Source: Authors estimation.

Finally, the results also highlighted that the minimum value of EG was 3.234% in
Laos, while the maximum value of EG was 77.242% in Singapore. Table 2 shows the
country-wise descriptive statistics.
The current article has also run the descriptive statistics that show the year-wise
data about the variables. The figures highlighted that the minimum value of SDGI
was 60.091 in 1986, while the maximum value of SDGI was 81.495 in 2020. In 1989
the minimum value of ES was 60.367, while the maximum value of ES was 76.416 in
2018. The figures also exposed that the minimum value of SS was 63.067 in 1991
while the maximum value of SS was 76.805 in 2019. In addition, the figures high-
lighted that the minimum value of GS was 61.982 in 1986 while the maximum value
of GS was 76.449 in 2018. Finally, the results also highlighted that the minimum
value of EG was 3.620% in Laos, while the maximum value of EG was 10.210% in
2017. Table 3 shows the year-wise descriptive statistics.
The current research examined the mean, maximum values, standard deviation,
minimum values, and observation using descriptive statistics. The results indicated
that 350 observations were used by the researchers, and the mean value of SDGI was
65.242 while the average value of ES was 64.883. In addition, the mean value of SS
was 65.994, while the average value of GS was 66.092, and the mean value of EG was
4.332%. Table 4 shows these results.
The researchers also checked the correlation among the understudy constructs
using a correlation matrix. The results investigated that the ES, SS, GS, and EG have
a positive linkage with SDGI. Table 5 shows these findings.
Moreover, the current article also examines stationarity using the ADF test. The
standard for the ADF test is that if the probability value is lower than 0.05, then the
variable is stationary at the level and vice versa. But if the probability value is lower
than 0.05 at the first difference, then the variable is stationary at the first difference
and vice versa. The results indicated that SDGI and EG were stationary at a level
while ES, SS, and GS were stationary at first difference. Table 6 shows the findings of
unit root test.
Hausman test has been used to select the best estimator among PMG and MG.
The standard rule is that if the probability value is larger than 0.05, then the PMG
model is suitable and vice versa. The figures highlighted that the probability value is
bigger than 0.05, and that the exposed PMG model is suitable. The results of the
Panel ARDL (PMG) model highlighted that the environmental score, social score,
180 M. SADIQ ET AL.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics (Year).

Years SDGI ES SS GS EG
1986 60.091 61.092 63.135 61.982 3.620
1987 60.572 61.592 63.562 62.435 3.330
1988 61.353 61.923 63.902 62.763 2.920
1989 61.934 60.367 64.300 63.174 2.590
1990 62.565 62.782 64.684 63.565 2.240
1991 63.196 63.198 63.067 63.955 4.890
1992 63.827 63.613 65.451 64.346 3.540
1993 64.458 64.029 65.834 64.736 1.190
1994 65.089 64.444 66.218 65.127 5.840
1995 65.720 64.860 66.601 65.517 4.490
1996 66.351 65.275 66.985 65.908 4.140
1997 66.982 65.691 67.368 66.298 0.210
1998 67.613 66.106 67.752 66.689 0.560
1999 68.244 66.522 68.135 67.079 0.910
2000 68.875 66.937 68.519 67.470 1.260
2001 69.506 67.353 68.902 67.860 1.610
2002 70.137 67.768 69.286 68.251 1.960
2003 70.768 68.184 69.669 68.641 2.310
2004 71.399 68.599 70.053 69.032 2.660
2005 72.030 69.015 70.436 69.422 3.010
2006 72.661 69.430 70.820 69.813 3.360
2007 73.292 69.846 71.203 70.203 3.710
2008 73.923 70.261 71.587 70.594 4.060
2009 74.554 70.677 71.970 70.984 4.410
2010 75.185 71.092 72.354 71.375 4.760
2011 75.816 71.508 72.737 71.765 5.110
2012 76.447 71.923 73.121 72.156 5.460
2013 77.078 72.339 73.504 72.546 5.810
2014 77.709 72.754 73.888 72.937 6.160
2015 78.340 73.170 74.271 73.327 6.510
2016 78.971 73.585 74.655 73.718 6.860
2017 79.602 74.001 75.038 74.108 10.210
2018 80.233 76.416 75.422 76.499 9.560
2019 80.864 74.832 76.805 74.889 7.910
2020 81.495 75.247 76.189 75.280 8.260
Source: Authors estimation.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics.

Variable Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
SDGI 350 65.242 4.729 60.252 82.092
ES 350 64.833 6.663 61.882 79.092
SS 350 63.994 7.292 60.992 79.002
GS 350 66.092 6.739 60.039 78.252
EG 350 4.332 7.927 7.531 14.726
Source: Authors estimation.

Table 5. Matrix of correlations.

Variables SDGI ES SS GS EG
SDGI 1.000
ES 0.342 1.000
SS 0.436 0.483 1.000
GS 0.329 0.399 0.529 1.000
EG 0.209 0.372 0.403 0.486 1.000
Source: Authors estimation.
 ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAŽIVANJA 181

Table 6. Unit root test.

Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test (ADF) Level t-statistics p-values
SDGI I(0) 6.773 0.000
ES I(1) 5.983 0.000
SS I(1) 4.873 0.009
GS I(1) 5.922 0.000
EG I(0) 4.312 0.016
Source: Authors estimation.

Table 7. Panel ARDL (PMG).

D.SDGI Beta S.D. z P>z L.L. U.L. Decisions
Short-run relationships
ES 1.093 0.292 3.743 0.003 0.192 1.982 Accept H1
SS 1.263 0.183 6.902 0.000 0.029 3.826 Accept H2
GS 1.621 0.291 5.570 0.000 1.262 3.873 Accept H3
EG 0.920 0.263 3.498 0.012 0.873 1.994 Accept H4
ECT 0.192 0.053 3.621 0.010 0.739 1.743
Long-run relationships
ES
D1. 0.172 0.076 2.263 0.017 0.924 2.829 Accept H1
SS
D1. 0.165 0.054 3.056 0.004 0.376 3.752 Accept H2
GS
D1. 0.873 0.283 3.085 0.001 0.535 3.092 Accept H3
EG
D1. 0.223 0.101 2.208 0.034 1.034 2.734 Accept H4
_cons 0.342 0.092 3.717 0.000 1.645 0.223
Source: Authors estimation.

governance score, and economic growth have a positive association with SDGs of the
ASEAN countries in the short and long run. Thus, hypothesis H1, H2, H3, and H4
were accepted. Table 7 shows the linkages of the variables.

5. Discussion
The results of the present study established a positive relationship between environ-
mental dimensions, one of ESG dimensions, and the achievement of SDGs, therefore
accepting H1. Recently, a research article by Kørnøv et al. (2020) supported the pre-
sent study findings with a focus on the same issue. This research article revealed that
when business organizations or institutions carry their activities in such a way as to
reduce the adverse impacts of the operations on the environmental quality along with
all environmental elements like land, air, water, plants, and living creatures, it
becomes easy for the country to gain maximum interrelated goals under the SDGs
agenda. The results were also in line with the research study of Fonseca and Carvalho
(2019). The study examined the environmental concerns of ESG and its role in the
achievement of SDGs for the country. According to the authors’ arguments, the exe-
cution of environmental regulatory practices like waste management, sanitation sys-
tem, clean energy consumption, and reduction of toxic gas emissions assists in
achieving goals set for sustainable development. Similarly, the findings of the study
by Omisore (2018) agreed with the present study results, which advocated the same
relationship between environmental regulations and the achievement of SDGs. It is
182 M. SADIQ ET AL.

stated that the corporations which care for the implementation of effective environ-
mentally friendly regulations will include practices regarding ecological friendly
resources, clean energy, and the adoption of environmentally friendly operations.
Such institutions protect the quality of environmental factors like air, water, atmos-
phere, quality of naturally found goods, and the health of living creatures. Because of
the assurance of a balanced climate, abundant natural resources, and skilled labor
force, environmental governance helps to attain the SDGs (e.g., good health, well-
being, equal distribution of resources, clear water and food, and a clean and sustain-
able production process). The study findings were also supported by the research
findings of Al-Saidi (2021), which focused that the implementation of environmental
regulations set by business enterprises themselves internally or environmental regula-
tions proposed and administered by a specific external regulatory authority ensures
the sustainable development for the country by enhancing the production activities,
raising employment and reducing poverty. Hence, the environmental governance on
the part of businesses guarantees SDGs’ achievement.
The study results showed a positive association between the social criteria of ESG
and the achievement of SDGs, therefore accepting H2. The results agreed with the
views of Wiegleb and Bruns (2018) in an article for the analysis of social governance
and its role in achieving the SDGs. The formation and execution of regulations for
promoting positive relationship between the organization and stakeholders like sup-
pliers, employees, investors, financers, customers, and the general public benefit both
the organization and the stakeholder, encouraging the many aspects of SDGs. The lit-
erary views of van Zanten and van Tulder (2021) regarding the social governance in
ESG and the achievement of SDGs advocated the same results as these ones are in
the present study. van Zanten and van Tulder (2021) argued that when the business
management developed a positive behavior towards the company employees while
forming or applying the business policies, they can achieve SDGs (e.g., the goals of
reduction of poverty, reducing hunger, good health, and improved wellbeing) with
the provision of equal opportunities of employment, clean work environment, and
financial support besides the actual salary. The study results were also supported by
the study of Costa et al. (2021), who mentioned that organizations must try to
develop smooth relations with the suppliers of raw materials or other resources.
These relations assist the organization in maintaining the quality of the products and
services without polluting the environment and damaging the stakeholder’s health
which are the key factors of sustainable development of the country. The results
matched with the past study of Jonsdottir et al. (2021), which highlights that when
the business organizations follow the standards of social relations and feel its social
responsibilities towards the stakeholders, it develops effective communication and
contacts with the investors who are the source of funds. In this situation, SDGs can
be easily achieved.
The results showed a positive link between corporate governance, a dimension of
ESG, and the achievement of SDGs, thus accepting H3. These results aligned with the
previous study of Buhmann et al. (2019), who examined the ESG role in the SDGs
achievement. This study implied that the effective administration of different depart-
ments of the business organization with a sense of responsibility towards the
 ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAŽIVANJA 183

wellbeing of the stakeholders and the interest of the organization itself, improves the
social and environmental performance of the organization along with the economic
performance. Thus, increasing the chances to achieve the SDGs. These results were
also supported by the study of Rosati and Faria (2019), which highlighted that busi-
nesses that adopt suitable communication networks within the organizations, in
which the communication is smooth and the employees, even at the lower level, are
allowed to share their ideas, there is equality, creativity and innovation, and respon-
sible production of goods and services. It highlighted that effective corporate govern-
ance leads to the achievement of SDGs. The findings agreed with the past study of
Lashitew (2021), who stated that the employees play a vital role in the sustainable
development of business enterprises, and corporate governance under the ESG pro-
motes effective human resource management through improved training, rewards,
compensation, and the provision of support and life security. Thus, countries apply-
ing the ESG have a large share in the achievement of SDGs. These results were also
in line with the recent study of Kørnøv et al. (2020), which is about the role of ESG
score in getting SDGs. This study highlighted that corporate governance in ESG tries
to remove the inequality among the executives and other employees in different busi-
ness areas by giving them equality rights and financial support, which serves the
SDGs of justice, equality, and provision of equal rights.
As per these study results, there is a positive association between economic growth
and the achievement of SDGs, therefore accepting H4. These results matched with
the study of Zafar et al. (2019), which showed that when there is high economic
growth, there is an increasing trend of production of goods and services within the
economy. For undertaking the increased productive activities, a large number of
labor-force is required. This gives employment opportunities and raises the workers’
standard of living through increased employment, salaries, and bonuses. Hence, the
increase in the growth rate helps to achieve the SDGs goals (e.g., no poverty and zero
hunger). Similarly, the study of Alola et al. (2019) supported these results by suggest-
ing that in economies having high growth, most of the enterprises in all economic
sectors are making progress and are able to adapt the productive mechanisms, up-to-
date resources, and modern technologies. Consequently, the SGDs quality education,
decent work, economic development, industry, innovation, and infrastructure can
successfully be achieved.

6. Conclusion
Though the member countries of ASEAN regions are progressive because of the
exponential increase in economic activities, a large circle of stakeholders, and
increased technology use within the economies, it becomes difficult for them to attain
the SDGs. SDGs is wholesome for the progress of a country, and the achievement of
SDGs can only be a source of survival for the countries in the international market.
This study was aimed to minimize the difficulty of achieving the SDGs and to secure
the country’s position across the world. The research was conducted to examine the
effectiveness of ESG dimensions like environmental governance, social governance,
and corporate governance along with economic growth in obtaining the SDGs. A
184 M. SADIQ ET AL.

quantitative research technique was applied to delve deep into ASEAN economies so
that the degree of influence of ESG dimensions like environmental governance, social
governance, corporate governance, and economic growth on the achievement of
SDGs can be examined. The results found indicated a positive link among ESG
dimensions, i.e., environmental governance, social governance, and corporate govern-
ance, along with economic growth and the achievement of SDGs. The results also
indicated that when the commercial enterprises take care of the environmental
through ecological friendly resources and practices and regulate the effectiveness of
these practices, they can have a better share in achieving the SDGs. The results also
revealed that the SDGs majority are based on the welfare of the public and stakehold-
ers of the business organizations through effective communication and relationship
between them. Thus, social governance ensures the achievement of SDGs. The study
inferred that corporate governance, like the effective management of the organization,
which includes the financial management, resources allocation, risk management,
organizational structure, work environment, and performance of employees, leads the
organization to make a large share to the SDGs achievement. The study concluded
that in countries with high economic growth, ESG implementation is high and is
more likely to achieve the SDGs.
Though the current study has theoretical and empirical implications, several limita-
tions are still associated with it, which serve as a question mark for the reliability and
validity of the study. The achievement of SDGs is a broad concept that requires
improvement in many factors, but the study dealt with only ESG dimensions like
environmental governance, social governance, and corporate governance for analyzing
the country’s capacity to achieve the SDGs. Unfortunately, only a limited number of
factors in relation to the achievement of SDGs were analyzed and the authors hoped
to analyze a greater number of factors that can affect the attainment of individual
SDGs. The authors carried out this research about the impacts of ESG dimensions
like environmental governance, social governance, corporate governance, and eco-
nomic growth on the achievement of SDGs for only a limited time. The analysis of
the selected countries during a specific period can provide only limited data, not
enough to meet the requirement of an effective study. Therefore, the authors need to
acquire a more comprehensive and reliable data through research of selected coun-
tries for an extended period, so that the study’s results can be applied for a lon-
ger period.

7. Implications
The current study has theoretical implications with large additions to the literature.
The subject of the study is the achievement of SDGs. This study focuses on the role
of ESG in achieving the 17 SDGs which were proposed by the UN General Assembly
in sustainability agenda 2030. It examines the impacts of ESG dimensions like envir-
onmental governance, social governance, and corporate governance along with eco-
nomic growth on the achievement of SDGs. ESG is a set of standards for the
sustainable performance of a particular organization, and it has been mostly
addressed as a complete term to determine the country’s capacity to achieve the
 ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAŽIVANJA 185

SDGs. This study initiates to determine ESG with its dimensions of environmental
governance, social governance, and corporate governance to determine the country’s
progress in achieving the SDGs. Many studies may have addressed ESG implementa-
tion as the driver of progress in achieving SDGs, but little research was conducted on
ESG implementation with economic growth analysis for determining the achievement
of SDGs. The analysis of ESG implementation with economic growth for achieving
SDGs is a great contribution to the literature. The present study has a great signifi-
cance in emerging countries which are major business units and has many industries,
having to interact with the stakeholders and use energy resources with other resour-
ces and technologies, which could affect the environmental and social progress. The
government entities, economists, and even the individual business enterprises could
have guidance from this study while making policies for achieving the SDGs. The
study presents an effective way to gain the SDGs. The current article provides help to
new researchers conducting research on achieving SDGs and guides the policymakers
in establishing policies regarding achieving the SDGs through ESG. One of the study
implications is that the government must form an environmental regulatory authority
to encourage the regulations for high environmental performance and must motivate
them to develop good relations with stakeholders and take care of their wellbeing.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This research is partly funded by Van Lang University, Vietnam. This research is also partly
funded by University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.

ORCID
Thanh Quang Ngo http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8357-1957
Khurshid Khudoykulov http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3105-9358

References
Ahmad, F., Draz, M. U., Su, L., Ozturk, I., Rauf, A., & Ali, S. (2019). Impact of FDI inflows
on poverty reduction in the ASEAN and SAARC economies. Sustainability, 11(9),
2565–2268. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092565
Al Mamun, A., Muniady, R., & Nasir, N. A. B. M. (2021). Effect of participation in develop-
ment initiatives on competitive advantages, performance, and sustainability of micro-enter-
prises in Malaysia. Contemporary Economics, 15(2), 122–138. https://doi.org/10.5709/ce.
1897-9254.439
Albu, A.-C., & Albu, L.-L. (2021). Public debt and economic growth in Euro area countries. A
wavelet approach. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 27(3), 602–625.
Allen, C., Metternicht, G., & Wiedmann, T. (2018). Initial progress in implementing the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A review of evidence from countries. Sustainability
Science, 13(5), 1453–1467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0572-3
186 M. SADIQ ET AL.

Alola, A. A., Bekun, F. V., & Sarkodie, S. A. (2019). Dynamic impact of trade policy, economic
growth, fertility rate, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on ecological foot-
print in Europe. Science of the Total Environment, 685, 702–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2019.05.139
Al-Refaie, A., Al-Tahat, M., & Lepkova, N. (2020). Modelling relationships between agility,
lean, resilient, green practices in cold supply chains using ISM approach. Technological and
Economic Development of Economy, 26(4), 675–694. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2020.12866
Al-Saidi, M. (2021). Cooperation or competition? State environmental relations and the SDGs
agenda in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) region. Environmental Development, 37,
100581–101613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2020.100581
Belas, J., & Cepel, M. (2020). Market risk in the smes segment in the visegrad group countries.
Transformations in Business & Economics, 19(3C), 678–693.
Bernardelli, M., Prochniak, M., & Witkowski, B. (2021). Time stability of the impact of institu-
tions on economic growth and real convergence of the EU countries: Implications from the
hidden Markov models analysis. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic
Policy, 16(2), 285–323.
Betti, G., Consolandi, C., & Eccles, R. G. (2018). The relationship between investor materiality
and the sustainable development goals: A methodological framework. Sustainability, 10(7),
2248–2264. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072248
Blagov, Y. E., & Petrova-Savchenko, A. A. (2021). The transformation of corporate sustainabil-
ity model in the context of achieving the UN SDGs: Evidence from the leading Russian
companies. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 21(2),
307–321. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-01-2020-0047
Buhmann, K., Jonsson, J., & Fisker, M. (2019). Do no harm and do more good too:
Connecting the SDGs with business and human rights and political CSR theory. Corporate
Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 19(3), 389–403. https://doi.org/
10.1108/CG-01-2018-0030
Caiado, R. G. G., Leal Filho, W., Quelhas, O. L. G., de Mattos Nascimento, D. L., & Avila, 
L. V. (2018). A literature-based review on potentials and constraints in the implementation
of the sustainable development goals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 198, 1276–1288. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.102
Chapman, A., Fujii, H., & Managi, S. (2018). Key drivers for cooperation toward sustainable
development and the management of CO2 emissions: Comparative analysis of six Northeast
Asian countries. Sustainability, 10(1), 244–261. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010244
Consolandi, C., Phadke, H., Hawley, J., & Eccles, R. G. (2020). Material ESG outcomes and
SDG externalities: Evaluating the health care sector’s contribution to the SDGs.
Organization & Environment, 33(4), 511–533. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026619899795
Costa, A., Tafuro, A., Benvenuto, M., & Viola, C. (2021). Corporate social responsibility
through SDGs: Preliminary results from a pilot study in Italian universities. Administrative
Sciences, 11(4), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11040117
Criado-Gomis, A., Iniesta-Bonillo, M., Cervera-Taulet, A., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2020).
Customer functional value creation through a sustainable entrepreneurial orientation
approach. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja, 33(1), 2360–2377. https://doi.org/10.
1080/1331677X.2019.1694560
Dahlmann, F., Stubbs, W., Griggs, D., & Morrell, K. (2019). Corporate actors, the UN sustain-
able development goals and earth system governance: A research agenda. The Anthropocene
Review, 6(1-2), 167–176. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019619848217
Dantas, T. E., De-Souza, E., Destro, I., Hammes, G., Rodriguez, C., & Soares, S. (2021). How
the combination of Circular Economy and Industry 4.0 can contribute towards achieving
the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 26, 213–227.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.10.005
De Guimar~aes, J. C. F., Severo, E. A., J
unior, L. A. F., Da Costa, W. P. L. B., & Salmoria, F. T.
(2020). Governance and quality of life in smart cities: Towards sustainable development
 ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAŽIVANJA 187

goals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 253, 119926–119132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.

2019.119926
Di Vaio, A., Palladino, R., Hassan, R., & Escobar, O. (2020). Artificial intelligence and business
models in the sustainable development goals perspective: A systematic literature review.
Journal of Business Research, 121, 283–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.08.019
Drebee, H. A., Razak, N. A. A., & Shaybth, R. T. (2020). The Impact of Governance Indicators
on Corruption in Arab Countries. Contemporary Economics, 14(3), 354–366. https://doi.org/
10.5709/ce.1897-9254.409
Escrig-Olmedo, E., Fernandez-Izquierdo, M. A.,  Ferrero-Ferrero, I., Rivera-Lirio, J. M., &
Mu~ noz-Torres, M. J. (2019). Rating the raters: Evaluating how ESG rating agencies integrate
sustainability principles. Sustainability, 11(3), 915–938. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030915
Farelnik, E., Stanowicka, A., & Wierzbicka, W. (2021). The effects of membership in the Polish
National Cittaslow Network. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic
Policy, 16(1), 139–167.
Fonseca, L., & Carvalho, F. (2019). The reporting of SDGs by quality, environmental, and
occupational health and safety-certified organizations. Sustainability, 11(20), 5797–5812.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205797
Gorska, A., & Mazurek, G. (2021). The effect of the CEO media coverage on corporate brand
equity: Evidence from Poland. Oeconomia Copernicana, 12(2), 499–523. https://doi.org/10.
24136/oc.2021.017
Herrero, M., Thornton, P. K., Mason-D’Croz, D., Palmer, J., Bodirsky, B. L., Pradhan, P.,
Barrett, C. B., Benton, T. G., Hall, A., Pikaar, I., Bogard, J. R., Bonnett, G. D., Bryan, B. A.,
Campbell, B. M., Christensen, S., Clark, M., Fanzo, J., Godde, C. M., Jarvis, A., …
Rockstr€ om, J. (2021). Articulating the effect of food systems innovation on the Sustainable
Development Goals. The Lancet Planetary Health, 5(1), e50–62. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/
S2542-5196(20)30277-1
Hu, W., Zhao, F., Yu, S., & Lu, T. (2021). Work-family balance human resource practice and
creative performance of an employee: Cross-layer multi-time point analysis. Transformations
in Business & Economics, 20, 539–557.
Hussain, H. I., Szczepa nska-Woszczyna, K., Kamarudin, F., Anwar, N. A. M., & Saudi,
M. H. M. (2021). Unboxing the black box on the dimensions of social globalisation and the
efficiency of microfinance institutions in Asia. Oeconomia Copernicana, 12(3), 557–592.
https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2021.019
Iqbal, Q., Ahmad, N. H., & Halim, H. A. (2020). How does sustainable leadership influence
sustainable performance? Empirical evidence from selected ASEAN countries. SAGE Open,
10(4), 2158244020969394. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020969394
Jelaca, M. S., Milicevic, N., Bjekic, R., & Petrov, V. (2020). The effects of environment uncer-
tainty and leadership styles on organisational innovativeness. Engineering Economics/
Inzinerin_e Ekonomika, 31(4), 472–486.
Jonsdottir, G. E., Sigurjonsson, T. O., Alavi, A. R., & Mitchell, J. (2021). Applying responsible
ownership to advance SDGs and the ESG framework, resulting in the issuance of green
bonds. Sustainability, 13(13), 7331–7347. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137331
Khaled, R., Ali, H., & Mohamed, E. K. (2021). The sustainable development goals and corpor-
ate sustainability performance: Mapping, extent and determinants. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 8, 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127599
Khan, S. A. R., Sharif, A., Golp^ıra, H., & Kumar, A. (2019). A green ideology in Asian emerg-
ing economies: From environmental policy and sustainable development. Sustainable
Development, 27(6), 1063–1075. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1958
Kørnøv, L., Lyhne, I., & Davila, J. G. (2020). Linking the UN SDGs and environmental assess-
ment: Towards a conceptual framework. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 85,
106463–106176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106463
Lashitew, A. A. (2021). Corporate uptake of the Sustainable Development Goals: Mere green-
washing or an advent of institutional change? Journal of International Business Policy, 4(1),
184–200. https://doi.org/10.1057/s42214-020-00092-4
188 M. SADIQ ET AL.

Lassala, C., Orero-Blat, M., & Ribeiro-Navarrete, S. (2021). The financial performance of listed
companies in pursuit of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Economic Research-
Ekonomska Istrazivanja, 34(1), 427–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2021.1877167
Li, L., Xia, X., Chen, B., & Sun, L. (2018). Public participation in achieving sustainable devel-
opment goals in China: Evidence from the practice of air pollution control. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 201, 499–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.046
Ma’ruf, A., & Aryani, F. (2019). Financial Inclusion and Achievements of Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) in ASEAN. GATR Journal of Business and Economics Review,
4(4), 147–155. https://doi.org/10.35609/jber.2019.4.4(1)
Mahmood, F., Qadeer, F., Saleem, M., Han, H., & Ariza-Montes, A. (2021). Corporate social
responsibility and firms’ financial performance: a multi-level serial analysis underpinning
social identity theory. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1331677X.2021.1874463
Martınez-Ferrero, J., & Garcıa-Meca, E. (2020). Internal corporate governance strength as a
mechanism for achieving sustainable development goals. Sustainable Development, 28(5),
1189–1198. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2068
Menton, M., Larrea, C., Latorre, S., Martinez-Alier, J., Peck, M., Temper, L., & Walter, M.
(2020). Environmental justice and the SDGs: From synergies to gaps and contradictions.
Sustainability Science, 15(6), 1621–1636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00789-8
Miceikiene, A., Krikstolaitis, R., & Nausediene, A. (2021). An assessment of the factors affect-
ing environmental pollution in agriculture in selected countries of Europe. Transformations
in Business & Economics, 20(1), 93–110.
Mikołajczak, P. (2021). What affects employment by NGOs? Counteraction to precarious
employment in the Polish non-profit sector in the perspective of COVID-19 pandemic cri-
ses. Oeconomia Copernicana, 12(3), 761–788. https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2021.025
Murshed, M., Abbass, K., & Rashid, S. (2021). Modelling renewable energy adoption across
south Asian economies: Empirical evidence from Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
International Journal of Finance & Economics, 26(4), 5425–5450. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.
2073
Naciti, V. (2019). Corporate governance and board of directors: The effect of a board compos-
ition on firm sustainability performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 237,
117727–117134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117727
Nurwani, N., Amal, B. K., Adisaputera, A., & Ridwan, M. (2020). The creativity of society
making ritual becomes show art: Transformation of ratok bawak meaning on Minangkabau
society, Indonesia. Creativity Studies, 13(2), 437–448. DOIhttps://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2020.
10326
Omisore, A. G. (2018). Attaining Sustainable Development Goals in sub-Saharan Africa; The
need to address environmental challenges. Environmental Development, 25, 138–145. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2017.09.002
Pahl-Wostl, C., Bhaduri, A., & Bruns, A. (2018). Editorial special issue: The nexus of water,
energy and food–an environmental governance perspective. Environmental Science & Policy,
90, 161–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.06.021
Pashkevich, N., & Haftor, D. M. (2020). Complementarities of knowledge worker productivity:
Insights from an online experiment of software programmers with innovative cognitive
style. Contemporary Economics, 14(2), 236–254. https://doi.org/10.5709/ce.1897-9254.402
 Banyt_e, J., Dovalien_e, A., Gadeikien_e, A., & Korzilius, H. (2021). Sustainable
Piligrimien_e, Z.,
consumption patterns in different settings. Engineering Economics, 32(3), 278–291. https://
doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.32.3.28621
Pizzi, S., Rosati, F., & Venturelli, A. (2021). The determinants of business contribution to the
2030 agenda: Introducing the SDG reporting score. Business Strategy and the Environment,
30(1), 404–421. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2628
Pop, A., Bolog, C., & Nistoreanu, B. (2021). The perception of Romanian students and gradu-
ates of tourism and hospitality programmes regarding the labor market and their future
employment. Transformations in Business & Economics, 20(1), 125–139.
 ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAŽIVANJA 189

Qureshi, M. I., Khan, N., Qayyum, S., Malik, S., Hishan, S. S., & Ramayah, T. (2020).
Classifications of sustainable manufacturing practices in ASEAN region: A systematic review
and bibliometric analysis of the past decade of research. Sustainability, 12(21), 8950–8967.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218950
Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Ramakrishna, S., Hall, C. M., Esfandiar, K., & Seyfi, S. (2020). A system-
atic scoping review of sustainable tourism indicators in relation to the sustainable develop-
ment goals. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.
1775621.
Rojek-Adamek, P. (2021). The role of sharing creative ideas: Professional designers about their
work. Creativity Studies, 14(2), 521–534. DOI https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2021.14723
Rosati, F., & Faria, L. G. D. (2019). Business contribution to the Sustainable Development
Agenda: Organizational factors related to early adoption of SDG reporting. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(3), 588–597. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.
1705
Roscoe, S., Subramanian, N., Jabbour, C. J., & Chong, T. (2019). Green human resource man-
agement and the enablers of green organisational culture: Enhancing a firm’s environmental
performance for sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(5),
737–749. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2277
Saetra, H. S. (2021). A framework for evaluating and disclosing the ESG related impacts of AI
with the SDGs. Sustainability, 13(15), 8503–8865. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158503
Schroeder, P., Anggraeni, K., & Weber, U. (2019). The relevance of circular economy practices
to the sustainable development goals. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23(1), 77–95. https://doi.
org/10.1111/jiec.12732
Shahbaz, M., Sharma, R., Sinha, A., & Jiao, Z. (2021). Analyzing nonlinear impact of economic
growth drivers on CO2 emissions: Designing an SDG framework for India. Energy Policy,
148, 111965–111134. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111965
Sharif, A., Baris-Tuzemen, O., Uzuner, G., Ozturk, I., & Sinha, A. (2020). Revisiting the role of
renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on Turkey’s ecological footprint:
Evidence from Quantile ARDL approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 57, 102138–102108.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102138
Sharma, S. K. (2020). Financial development and economic growth in selected Asian econo-
mies: A dynamic panel ARDL test. Contemporary Economics, 14(2), 201–219.
Siakwah, P., Musavengane, R., & Leonard, L. (2020). Tourism governance and attainment of
the Sustainable Development Goals in Africa. Tourism Planning & Development, 17(4),
355–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2019.1600160
Sinha, A., Sengupta, T., & Alvarado, R. (2020). Interplay between technological innovation and
environmental quality: Formulating the SDG policies for next 11 economies. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 242, 118549–111198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118549
Streimikiene, D., & Ahmed, R. R. (2021a). The integration of corporate social responsibility
and marketing concepts as a business strategy: Evidence from SEM-based multivariate and
Toda-Yamamoto causality models. Oeconomia Copernicana, 12(1), 125–157. https://doi.org/
10.24136/oc.2021.006
Streimikien_e, D., & Ahmed, R. R. (2021b). Corporate social responsibility and brand manage-
ment: Evidence from Carroll’s pyramid and triple bottom line approaches. Technological
and Economic Development of Economy, 27(4), 852–875. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2021.
14520
Suryanto, H., Degeng, I. N. S., Djatmika, E. T., & Kuswandi, D. (2021). The effect of creative
problem solving with the intervention social skills on the performance of creative tasks.
Creativity Studies, 14(2), 323–335. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2021.12364
Symaco, L. P., & Tee, M. Y. (2019). Social responsibility and engagement in higher education:
Case of the ASEAN. International Journal of Educational Development, 66, 184–192. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2018.10.001
190 M. SADIQ ET AL.

Trung, N. N., Le, N. T. H., Ho ^i, T. V., & Kim, W. J. (2021). Self-assessment to subjective cre-
ativity and new ideas: Determinant within risk taking, autonomy and tradition. Creativity
Studies, 14(2), 362–375. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2021.13991
van Zanten, J. A., & van Tulder, R. (2021). Towards nexus-based governance: defining interac-
tions between economic activities and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). International
Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 28(3), 210–226. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13504509.2020.1768452
Vega-Mu~ noz, A., Salazar-Sepulveda, G., Espinosa-Cristia, J. F., & Sanhueza-Vergara, J. (2021).
How to measure environmental performance in ports. Sustainability, 13(7), 4035–4052.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13074035
Vollmer, D., Bezerra, M. O., Martınez, N. A., Ortiz, O. R., Encomenderos, I., Marques, M. C.,
Serrano-Duran, L., Fauconnier, I., & Wang, R. Y. (2021). Can we take the pulse of environ-
mental governance the way we take the pulse of nature? Applying the Freshwater Health
Index in Latin America. Ambio, 50(4), 870–883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01407-8
Vveinhardt, J., & Sroka, W. (2020). Mobbing and corporate social responsibility: Does the sta-
tus of the organisation guarantee employee wellbeing and intentions to stay in the job?
Oeconomia Copernicana, 11(4), 743–778. https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2020.030
Vveinhardt, J., & Sroka, W. (2021). Independent variables affecting employee behaviour in
socially responsible organisations: Working environment in Lithuania and Poland.
Engineering Economics, 32(3), 266–277. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.32.3.28651
Wiegleb, V., & Bruns, A. (2018). Hydro-social arrangements and paradigmatic change in water
governance: An analysis of the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Sustainability Science,
13(4), 1155–1166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0518-1
Xue, L., Weng, L., & Yu, H. (2018). Addressing policy challenges in implementing Sustainable
Development Goals through an adaptive governance approach: A view from transitional
China. Sustainable Development, 26(2), 150–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1726
Zafar, M. W., Zaidi, S. A. H., Khan, N. R., Mirza, F. M., Hou, F., & Kirmani, S. A. A. (2019).
The impact of natural resources, human capital, and foreign direct investment on the eco-
logical footprint: The case of the United States. Resources Policy, 63, 101428–101135. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.101428
Zhao, Z., Liu, Y., Wang, J., Wang, B., & Guo, Y. (2021). Association rules analysis between
brand post characteristics and consumer engagement on social media. Engineering
Economics, 32(4), 387–403.
Ziolo, M., Bak, I., & Cheba, K. (2020). The role of sustainable finance in achieving Sustainable
Development Goals: Does it work? Technological and Economic Development of Economy,
27(1), 45–70. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2020.13863